Sere eet at Ban be ew e e $ 03 at =~ bm 


ee ad > fet bet BG O&O 
oer eer tt Cera es Serre = 
r 6 a le ne OT 


it me ot eh 


ee er od 


ahgeai ete’ 
lee) priszraieielt 
wicereiele Peay 
Cee SCA rt 


ay 
het 


ei 
re 


es, 
oni 


$a ed ah ea 


ee ee 


ri > ’ 
aye ele ee 
Tarai ele le 


~ 

ss 

-% 
an 


ae 
hos 5 


Fae ae Fo a 


ee eae ae tn 


See abo 
a 


Petr Se ee a nae 
Sete ete ater oe 

ee eT ee eee 

eat ab <8 


i ‘ 
{eke 
ele 
> 
o— Gre Ben F< Pre P= 
a > 
: ae 


FT a ede 
ea 
a 


ar a eer 
le Tr 
- Be 


eee ees eter oe Bes 





+ = 
eS a re ee te al 


ee 


EI OF PEE 
SEi 21 1925 


, 
%, S 
Se osicar sews 





Division |). 





Section pean 
@ 


hn atey 


bore) Fd 
pote. rt oe 


¢ ‘ate 
‘4 ‘ 
, , & 





i iy j 
i 





On 


aie 1), 
vi, 


e Ny si 


~ 


PR eee 


Gan 
i ad 
al 
¢ 








JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT 
IN THE 
MIDDLE AGES 








Se eee ee Z ‘ 7 ‘ eo 3 ee 


are ak a, . ‘ : ° , ihe ae 
eagle , < . ly " 5 . a4 - “* 








<a Mls. 
°F a, ee v 
MODE ree Mote 


Me <3 ha ) ria 
ABRAHAM BERLINER SERIES Saad 46 






SER 21 1925 


‘es 
nen sew” 


JEWISH SELF-GOVERN 
IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


BY 
r 


RABBI LOUIS FINKELSTEIN 


INSTRUCTOR IN TALMUD AT THE JEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF AMERICA 


WITH A FOREWORD 
BY 


PROFESSOR ALEXANDER MARX 


NEW YORK 
THE JEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF AMERICA 
1924 


“a 
“ 


aa Fr ae - e A ci ri 
fare are aed: _. : 
= plead ‘ * a, , > . ; 
aS ee, a Fhe 7% 







we 
- 


fon 


r. 
* 
a 
ie 
ye ren 
eh 


* ood at 
| P ’ a2) 
\ ‘ ; 
- 7 # 
. A - Le 
] , , E ¢ a] ht 
¢ P : 
4 « i ‘ i 
be : 7 y ; 
, 
. ~* 2 x 
~ _ bs . ‘¢ ' 


bate Copyright by _ r; ve Pe a 
Ley e fi THE JEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF AMERICA 
[Pt ie . | 19240 ae ae 


. 
' a 
é 
+ ~ 
J 
‘ - 
=f z i 
2 
4 : 
! { 
i \ . 
“de “ 5 
’ 
: a 
*’ 
7 
‘? ss 
£. 
; x 
) . 
wa - 
t } ~* 
4 : a" “= " : 
a ' 
* 
vf a Me 
= = 
i « (og ae 


s] 

é - P 

re 4 
me By i HPs ne 
' ges i ae 

A TA 

F if ; 
, wh r. ie ; 


Printed at!” oP? igi Magia 
THE JEWISH PUBLICATION SOnre Tyee S 
Philadelphia, Penna, USA. 


he 





TO 
MR. LOUIS S. STROOCK 
IN APPRECIATION OF HIS ENCOURAGEMENT 
OF JEWISH LEARNING 


THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED 


—— 
.5i. 


a. 


& 
oD 


”, 


o» | 
a 


—_s 8 
€ 


A 





PREFACE 


The development of their communal life is one of the 
most interesting aspects of the history of the Jews in the 
middle ages. But no less important were their attempts 
to unite their various communities in country-wide orga- 
nizations. The measure of success which these endeavors 
achieved is most remarkable; but aside from the imme- 
diate results attained, the spectacle of a persecuted people, 
in the midst of disunited principalities, governed by their 
petty barons “for revenue only,’’ endeavoring to organize 
itself is eminently noteworthy. In the course of his studies 
on Rabbinical Synods, the writer was impressed by the fact 
that this phase of Jewish history had not received the 
attention it merited. It was from this point of view, 
therefore, that the prize essay submitted to the faculty of 
the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, under the 
title, ““The Rabbinical Synods from the Eleventh to the 
Seventeenth Centuries and their Enactments’’ was de- 
veloped into the present work. The new material that has 
been examined and the investigations that have been 
made into the stories of the conferences only increased 
one’s wonder at the ability of the mediaeval Jew to view 
with such clarity the problems that confronted him. 


The volume has grown to such proportions that it has 
been thought well to limit its scope to European com- 
munities, omitting the account of the organization of the 
Jews of Algiers and Morocco. The writer regrets this 
necessity not only because he feels that the history of these 
communities contains much of profound interest, but on 
the more personal ground that he was considerably helped 
in the reading of the Arabic texts used in the preparation 
of that part of the original essay by the late Professor 
Halper of the Dropsie College. 


viii PREFACE 


In order to complete the picture, the outlines of which 
are traced in the present volume, there would also be needed 
a comprehensive study of the local government of the Jews 
in the Middle Ages. Local ordinances were as common 
in Spain and Italy as were the countrywide synodal Tak- 
kanot in France and Germany. The writer has gathered 
a large amount of material on this subject, but has not yet 
crystallized it in book form. He hopes to be able to pre- 
sent these phases of the subject on some other occasion. 

The synods which are discussed in this volume had no 
authority, other than that granted them voluntarily by 
the Jews of the various communities. None of them was 
recognized by the secular government, and only in Spain 
and Italy was there any relation at all between the rabbini- 
cal gatherings and the state. Nevertheless it is felt that 
the term ‘Self-Government’? may properly be applied to 
the Jewish institutions of the Middle Ages, because whether 
de jure or de facto, the communities were autonomous en- 
tities. The decrees of the synods were obeyed, often with 
far greater rigor than those of the state government. The 
judiciary was organized to such an extent that courts of 
appeal were differentiated carefully from courts of original 
jurisdiction. The rights of the members of the communities 
as against the communities were defined with precision. 
Such an arrangement can hardly be called anything less 
than a system of ‘‘self-government.”’ 

It is probable that the division of the volume into parts, 
the first being devoted to a general account of the rise of 
synodal activity, and the second to an examination of 
the various document that have been preserved, will prove 
of help to the casual reader. Nevertheless it is hoped 
that even the lay reader, who may not be interested in 
the critical analysis of texts and in the explanation of 
difficult passages of the Talmudic sources, will endeavor to 
acquaint himself with the documents that are given there. 
It is with this in mind that virtually all the texts have 
been printed with translation. Though much of the ma- 
terial has previously appeared in print, none of it has 
hitherto been translated into English, and in nearly every 


\ 
PREFACE ix 


case new manuscript material has been available to pro- 
vide better texts. 

It is eminently fitting that this book should be the first 
in the series established in memory of the late Professor 
Abraham Berliner, who did so much to throw light on the 
history of the Jews in the Middle Ages, especially in his 
“Geschichte der Juden in Rom” and ‘Aus dem Leben der 
deutschen Juden im Mzttelalter.’’ The student who wishes 
to pursue further studies in this direction should consult 
these works and also Guedemann’s ‘Geschichte der Erzie- 
hungswesens und der Cultur der Abendlaendischen Juden.”’ 
The English reader will find a fascinating picture of the 
culture and civilization of the Jews of this period in ‘Jewish 
Life in the Middle Ages,”’ by Israel Abrahams. 

In conclusion the writer feels it a pleasure to express his 
gratitude to the Stroock family who established the prize 
which was the immediate stimulus to his undertaking this 
study, and to whom he is now under additonal obligations 
for making possible the publication of this book. During 
the course of the four years in which at various times the 
author has been engaged in preparing this volume he has 
received help from many friends both far and near. To Dr. 
A. E. Cowley, Dr. L. D. Barnett, Dr. H. Hirschfeld and 
Dr. A. Freimann, he is indebted for having kindly placed at 
his disposal copies and photographs of various manuscripts 
in their respective libraries. To Dr. Cyrus Adler, the Pres- 
ident, and Professor Israel Davidson, the Registrar of the 
Seminary, as well as to Professor D. S. Blondheim of Johns 
Hopkins University, he is thankful for their willingness to 
discuss with him various aspects of his work, and for helping 
him by many suggestions and criticisms;to Dr. Rosenberg of 
Ancona, he is under obligations for giving him permission to 
reprint the Takkanot of Candia from the Hoffmann Festschrift; 
to Mr. D. S. Sassoon of London, for generously sending him 
photographs of the part of the manuscript of the Takkanot 
which Dr. Rosenberg did not publish. The author has 
been considerably helped in preparing the manuscript of 
this volume by his wife as well as by his friend, Mr. Maurice 
Samuel, both of whom suggested a number of improvements 


PREFACE 


in style. Mr. Frank Schechter and Mr. Maurice Finkel- 
stein have also been helpful in discussing certain aspects 
of the work. 


The proofs of this work have been read by Professor 
Louis Ginzberg who, with his keen mind and unparalleled 
grasp on all fie:ds of Jewish literature, helped in the solu- 
tion of a number of problems which at first seemed almost 
insoluble. More than to anyone else, however, the author 
is indebted to Professor Alexander Marx, who not only 
provided him with much of the new material contained in 
this volume, but took a personal interest in the work, and 
with his usual generosity and unselfishness read the work 
both in manuscript and in proof, making innumerable ' 
suggestions and helpful criticisms. It is not too much to 
say that without the help of Professor Marx this book 
could not have appeared in its present form» 


In stating his indebtedness to his teachers and friends 
for their kind co-operation, che writer does not wish to free 
himself from ultimate responsibility for all the statements 
made in it. Such errors as may be charged against it, 
whether of fact or of judgment, must be set against him, 
He trusts, however, that whatever may be the failings of 
the work, the reader will through it become more interested 
in the history of the Jewish people and their literature. If 
this purpose is achieved, the author feels that he will have 
accomplished his task. 

Louis FINKELSTEIN. 


FOREWORD 


Several years ago Messrs. Louis S. Stroock, Mark E. 
Stroock, Moses J. Stroock, Joseph Stroock, and Sol. M. 
Stroock, established at the Jewish Theological Seminary 
of America, the Abraham Berliner Prize in Jewish History 
in memory of their uncle, the distinguished historian, my . 
revered master, Professor Abraham Berliner. One of the 
early subjects announced for this prize was ‘“The Rabbinical 
Synods from the Eleventh to the Seventeenth Centuries.”’ 
In 1920 the prize was awarded to. Dr. Louis Finkelstein. 
Since that time the essay has been carefully revised and 
enlarged by the author and is now published through the 
generosity of the gentlemen who established the prize. 

The important subject discussed in the following pages 
has never heretofore been treated by itseif, and but a 
few of the synods have been made the subjects of smaller 
monographs. It is only a comprehensive treatment that 
enables us to gain a full view of this most important aspect 
of the constitutional activity of the European Jewish com- 
munities during the Middle Ages. 

It is most interesting to observe how the economic and 
social decline of German Jewry in particular influenced 
this part of their activity. The spirit which finds expres- 
sion in the enactments of the period preceding the Black 
Plague is quite different from that of the later period. 
Their whole outlook on life was changed as they gradually 
were turned from free citizens into bondmen of the emperor 
and the many petty rulers of the cities. Their spiritual 
activity was dwarfed and the legal developments of the 
succeeding centuries show the unhealthy influence of their 
unfortunate status. Nowhere is this as evident as in the 
synodal enactments which pass before our eyes in Dr. 
Finkelstein’s book. | 

A study of this pay eopent is of the Brats value o 


xii FOREWORD 


the solution of the problems of the present day. While 
there is no more room for such provincial gatherings in our 
time when the Jewries of the whole world are brought into 
close contact by modern methods of communication, there 
is no doubt a crying need for a representative gathering 
embodying in its membership the Jewries of all the various 
countries, to grapple with the problems confronting us. 
Such a body which must enjoy the confidence of all the 
people in the same measure in which it was possessed by 
those ancient predecessors and must act in the spirit of 
the synods of the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries, 
continuing where they stopped, would be the greatest boon 
for the present and future generations. Let us hope that 
the development of conditions in Palestine will in its 
natural course lead to the consumation of this ideal for 
only in Palestine can we imagine the successful accomplish- 
ment of such a scheme. 

To return to the book before us, it has the great merit of 
collecting in one place all the various texts that have come 
down to us with the enactments of the different synods. 
A good deal of the material is new. The Takkanot of 
Corfu and some of those from Italy were entirely unknown 
heretofore. Of the greatest importance is the treatment of 
the German synods which takes up the larger part of the 
volume. The comparison of the various texts both printed 
and hitherto unprinted has made possible the establish- 
ment of the character and authenticity of sets of Takkanot 
by Rabbenu Gershom and Rabbenu Tam. _ Incidentally 
new light is thrown in the course of these investigations on 
the history of German Jewish life in the days before 
Rabbenu Gershom, about which so few sources are avail- 
able. In regard to the synods of the Rhine communities 
in the early part of the thirteenth century the author has 
found in a manuscript of Jews’ College a text which is 
older than either of those previously published. Moreover 
he shows that the text hitherto accepted as containing the 
enactments of the synod of 1220 is in reality a revision of 
the earlier text by a later synod, which met in the middle 
of that century. Altogether the new material has enabled 


FOREWORD xiii 


the author to establish more reliable texts and to place his 
discussions on a broader and firmer basis. The book is 
undoubtedly a very welcome addition to our historical 
literature and enriches particularly the scanty English 
publications on such subjects. 


ALEXANDER MARX. 





TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Part. I, 


GENERAL ACCOUNT OF THE RABBINICAL SYNODS. 


European Jewry in the Tenth Century....-................005. 1 
Early Jewish Institutions in France and Germany............... 6 
Re eORCT AM TCIBMON) <0, amor thes utien Ite she. see Sera ot IAN, sori: 8 20 
BREET ELITES VHLOTIS Kec MEME are eet Teens ANY cee teen ot A 36 
eerimansynous Pron 106-12 50gaaies oe icc oe ea Mok 56 
SIMO SEE DMS SOU Ls a icws ait Ra tle a ns Ne NER ae a RAL aA a 66 
ERATE EAC SOT ITI OVITOUS ae et ial te GPE citi ere fi ithe n nia: wetste MARS 72 
BUSA OEY CL ALICIA 5 Sar era ce saci) eee MET Bc rosy Ae Wie) ee eA a 82 
SR NOt Ofe) bol ly trac tue wae ee ceorg aol as CW cree noc oibestahe ahd 86 
SMR mee LAOL COL [ie oe een oot ais WI TUe, fe ea ac ie ecto uaena aha yh ciem 66 
SaItStOTAL Te OPAMISH |e Waammnn wets Lai cute coaak ie cael aa aaa 99 
ANS TRME NCL ei lace a) shoe ceeeMMm ee Merial baie sO ren, lee rai NA Oa tal 105 
Part IT. 


TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS. 


Mie ie Otero se CTCTSMOMM) Waal sidcs Pn Sarees Gari wee pen nee Motes iB | 
Regulations Concerning The Suspension of the Herem Against 
PluralMarriage and Similar Regulations..........0.......... 139 
ei IMaL INSU ee ek air es ig acetic yon DU TRR ee ei e ae’ 148 
RIOR ee OTR Te ETTE Ne Seer eee ey a crt Sore ua De antidote 150 
se maa ANOL Ol Otte LATO rn aks, oie eee ae pe ima tae we OL 171 
eMart U aK Katian O18 he Glee nen \ soe ihe ies une kG a arate We 216 
Takkanot of the Rhine Communities..... Deke Say SPR n ON aie zal er ane a a ad 218 
UMMM IRERIMLeC eS UKLOTL oie Gah ety het ee ati. aes es el ai.e ean dalad Nek 2, oa 257 
MTOR AT Cia leee Mein fod ceri iky sek bape thaw iki L so cde 265 
Meme TEMeveRC NT ALU Yan ust thet: Beets Gy ote wn clas aah «Sir Se AS Se whee wk 281 
NAIL COLL ot Ace ee ess See Fine Role me aa ae eds 216 
AC CRINISIR PUAN COIL: ars 2We hai oe Men: 30 nic) aa cow's eae Da ahs Meare tete uns 328 
Semmonatiuie Gastiiat Jews, 143220 inna bie he oe gitall eke. CM oe 348 
Additional Notes: 
PeLAmudicaLaw Regarding Gompetition f.7 ur f7 hs) aon. Pi 376 
B. The Legal Status of Women in German Jewry............. 377 
ora nneliater) ucisdiction any) almudic Law ils its obese Ve ues 379 
D. The Origin of the Custom of Interrupting the Prayers...... 382 
MeL ACVht FA FIT ECU LALIOTI ES alo | Vc, LN! hele eben die tess a oad dy, bon wlan Mites 383 
EES Ce a RT Sa se a SSE oat gg ey 4 AR Le a Pe 385 





PART I 


GENERAL ACCOUNT OF THE RABBINICAL 
SYNODS 








isa te 


ef re ; y 


CHAPTER I 


EUROPEAN JEWRY IN THE TENTH CENTURY 


Among the innumerable Talmudic legends which are 
centered about the life of Moses, one, among the most 
beautiful, deals with the last moments of the law-giver and 
liberator. As he stood on Mount Nebo, overlooking the 
valley of the Jordan, the legend tells, the veil was lifted 
from his mortal eves and the future story of his people was 
unrolled before him, generation by generation, until the 
coming of the Messiah. We, the children of this age, look- 
ing back on some of the centuries that he foresaw, with 
their marvelous changes, may well ask ourselves with what 
profound and alternating emotions of joy and grief the 
sage hailed the prophetic panorama. For in the intense 
-forshortening of his last mortal moments, he saw the rise 
and fail of the tiny Jewish kingdom, the swift blossoming 
of its sacred and secular glory, its humiliation and destruc- 
tion, the brief but poignant agony of the first exile, the 
slow, heroic reconstruction of the second Jewish common- 
wealth, its struggles and death-agonies—and the final 
catastrophe which shattered the edifice of his building after 
more than a thousand years, and scattered its fragments 
to the ends of the world. 

Thus too did the Sages of old picture to themselves the 
last moments of Israel’s first leader. The great drama of the 
history of the Jewish people, with its crises, with its moments 
of tension, with its generations of anxious foreboding, 
becamé even more impressive when it was seen as a vision 
of an ancient lawgiver and prophet. Yet the epic con- 
tains no tenser moment than that which marked the dis- 
appearance of the Jewish center in the east and the develop- 
ment of new communities in the West. Even the fall 


* Comp. Sifre, Deuteronomy, ed. Friedmann, p. 149a. 


2 _ JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


of the Second Commonwealth, catastrophic as it was, and 
full of peril to the continued existence of the people,was 
of no greater significance than the fall of the academies 
of Sura and Pumbedita. For when the independence of 
Israel was lost there still remained the spiritual authority 
of the elders; the Jews throughout the world were still 
bound together by bonds of common allegiance to recog- 
nized leaders. With the fall of the Babylonian academies 
the last semblance of centralized authority waslost. Never- 
more could any Jewish community lay claim to the hege- 
mony of Jewish life. . The authority of the rabbis of each 
country was limited by the political confines of the secular 
government. The disruption of the Jewish central au- 
thority would of itself have made che period memorable, 
but the full extent to which it was fraught with danger 
can be realized only when we remember that these new 
western communities, which were rising into prominence, 
were living under novel conditions—conditions so different 
from those which had previously surrounded Jewish life, 
that only by a miracle could one hope for a survival of the 
ancient nation. , 

For several centuries the Jewish communities of Europe 
attempted to follow the guidance of the Eastern authorities, 
the heads of the Palestinian and Babylonian schools. Nu- 
merous lecters have been preserved in which the old scholars 
of Asia gave their decisions in reply to questions addressed 
to them from the West. Agents of the old academies 
travelled throughout the new communities collecting con- 
tributions for the maintenance of the houses of learning. 
Sometimes these representatives who were often scholars 
of note, were persuaded to remain in Europe and to serve 
as rabbis for the communities. There thus were planted 
the seeds of a new scholarship in Spain,in Italy, in France 
and in Germany. At the beginning of the tenth century, 
when the genius of R. Saadia Gaont was bringing new 


1b. Fayyum, Egypt, ‘882; d. Sura, 942. He was by far the most 
famous of the Geonim; author of many important works and a pioneer 
in several branches of Jewish studies, such as Hebrew lexicography, 
philosophy, methodology of the Talmud. He wrote commentaries to 


CHAPTER I 3 


energy into the school of Sura, there had already been 
opened modest institutions of Talmudic learning on the 
banks of the Rhine and the Ebro. A generation later when 
the academy of Pumbedita, under the leadership of R. 
Sherira and R. Hai Gaon,! had surpassed that of Sura, 
these new western schools had already produced scholars 
who could rival the eastern masters in learning. 

Yet the increase of knowledge of Jewish tradition could 
not of itself solve the problem of the adjustment of Jewish 
life to its new conditions. Probably the majority of the 
Jewish people were at this time still living in Asia or Africa. 
They were under the dominion of Islam. While the Arabic 
world was from time to time plunged into the throes of 
civil war, there were long stretches of comparative peace; 
the edict of the caliph was obeyed; there was thriving com- 
merce and industry; there was a semblance of justice, even 
though at times it had to be purchased; there were large 
academies where scientific studies were pursued. 

Far different were the conditions that prevailed in Chris- 
tendom during the tenth and eleventh centuries. Ignorance 
was all but universal. Evenso great a potentate as Charle- 
magne had been unable to write his name. He could 
only make the two lines that formed the “‘u”’ of his name, 
Carolus, the rest was filled in by the scribe. Conditions 
had not much improved in the two centuries that had 
elapsed between the time of his death and the eleventh 
century. Under the feudal system the traveler was at 
the mercy of every baron and petty landholder through 
whose territory he had to pass. The central government 
was as a rule very weak; justice could rarely be obtained 
against one’s superior except by appeal to the sword; 
the anarchy that filled Latin Europe in the tenth century 
brought about a relapse from the moderate intellectual 
attainments of the ninth century. 


the Mishna, and Arabic translation of as well as commentaries on the 
Scriptures. See Malter’s Life and Works of Saadia Gaon, Jewish Pub- 
lication Society, 1921. For his dates see also Mann, J.Q.R. (N.S.) II, 
423-4; and Marx, R.E.J. 74. 222. 

* d. 1038. The last important Gaon of Babylonia. 


‘ 


4 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


It was inconceivable that the Geonim living under 
Moslem rule should have a correct understanding of the 
problems confronting their brethren in the new, slowly- 
developing European states. Even if all that was needed 
had been guidance in Talmudic study and the ritual, 
it would have been difficult to live permanently under the 
rule of foreign leaders. But the Western Communities 
needed more; they needed guidance in a diplomatic, states- 
manlike sense. Their problems were not merely matters 
of prayer-book and forbidden food, but they often involved 
their relation to the government, their control of their own 
members, and the adjustment of the Talmudic civil law 
to the new conditions. In these matters the Geonim could 
not aid them at all. 

In the case of the Spanish and Italian communities 
their proximity to the ancient centers made the problem 
less formidable. Especially were the Spanish communities 
able to rely on the spiritual leadership of the Geonim long 
after that had failed the communities north of the Pyrenees. 
They spoke the same language and in general belonged to 
_the same culture as the Oriental scholars. Far different 
were conditions in France and Germany where feudalism 
was at its zenith. The political institutions that were ~ 
developing, the influence exerted by the Church on the infant 
states, the very character of the people among whom they 
lived were helping to shape the future of the Jewish com- 
munities. From being insignificant in the tenth century, the 
Jewries of Western Europe developed into foremost commu- 
nities by the thirteenth. They overcame the all-prevading 
ignorance that was strangling their cultural life before the 
year 1000, and by the year 1300, their children were teachers 
of the Jewish world. The persecutions of the Crusades, the 
incessant hatred, the ruthless tax-exactions, the general 
anarchy of the country could not repress their soul. 

The problems that faced the Jews in those critical 
centuries were solved largely by synods and councils where 
representatives of the various communities gathered, usu- 
ally at the call of one of the great leaders of the people. 
The decisions reached at these conferences appear even 


CHAPTER I 5 


from the distance of a thousand years to have been in most 
cases the most far-sighted. Among the leaders who were 
responsible for the gathering of such synods, the foremost 
was R. Gershom b. Judah. It was he who in the tenth 
century laid the foundations of the system that helped to 
organize and to strengthen French and German Jewry 
for half a millenium. The importance of his work can 
hardly be overestimated, but it will be better understood 
in the light of the institutions which the Jewish communities 
had developed when he came forward as the leader of 
German Jewry. 


CUA Ea. calf 


EARLY JEWISH INSTITUTIONS IN FRANCE AND 
GERMANY 


a. THE HEREM BETH DIN. 


Even during the formative period, before the year 1000, 
the communities of Israel in France and Germany had 
developed customs which were destined to play an impor- 
tant part in their life. Their very distance from the old 
centers made the creation of new institutions inevitable. 
While these institutions were primarily legal, they are of 
importance in discussing the life of a community whose 
main bond of union was social rather than economic or 
political. 

One of the main problems that faced the Jewish com- 
munities of the West was that of establishing courts of 
justice. The secular courts had not yet developed any 
system of jurisprudence that was comparable to Talmudic 
law. On the other hand the fact that the Jews were fast 
becoming the men of commerce made necessary for them 
a more intricate system of law than was required for the 
simple peasantry of the surrounding population. The 
matter was all the more urgent since the feudal courts 
hardly provided for the Jew. Society as well as law was 
based on the assumption that the litigants were Christians 
and the Jew was forced to seek his justice elsewhere. 

Moreover the German and French Jews had _ inherited 
from their ancestors a strong attachment to the system 
of having their own courts.* When Jerusalem had fallen 
the local courts still retained their right to decide civil 
cases, and in some cases even criminal matters. The 


* Gittin 88b and comp. I Corinthians 6.1, where Christians are 
urged not to appeal to heathen courts. 


CHAPTER II . 7 


Babylonian courts, too, had been permitted by the secular 
government to apply Talmudic law in civil matters. 
The Jews of the period were inclined to regard it as a re- 
flection on their own law, to take a case before the secular. 
courts. There was still a sense of hesitation about per- 
mitting the Gentile population to hear their quarrels. 

As the infant European states did not interfere with the 
retention of the autonomy of the Jewish communities, 
and even encouraged it, local courts were established 
by the Jews in the important communities. In order to 
insure obedience to their decrees these courts made use 
of the right of excommunication or Herem. Just as in 
Talmudic times’, so in the new communities of Western 
Europe a person who failed to respond to a summons or 
carry out a decree of the court was laid under the Shamta. 
Excommunication was so effective a punishment that there 
was no need of police power or physical force of any kind 
in the execution of an order of the Court. For the ex- 
communicated person was not only forbidden to take 
part in the religious life of his people, which in itself would 
have been a serious blow to anyone in those days of piety 
and observance, but he was socially ostracized. 

The possession of the power of excommunication gave 
the Rabbi and the Community as great an advantage in 
dealing with recalcitrant individuals as the similar power ex- 
ercised by the Popes gave them over the kings of the twelfth 
and thirteenth centuries. Indeed so important was this 
authority, and so liable to misuse, that as the communities 
developed attempts were made to regulate it and to 
limit the right of the Rabbi or of the council of Elders 
to pronounce excommunications.? 

The theoretical basis on which the Rabbis of the European 
communities relied in assuming their authority to decide 
cases and to punish the disobedient is not clearly defined. 
While for ordinary civil suits Talmudic law permits the 
litigants to choose their judges, only men who had re- 

* Baba Kamma 112a. | 


2 See part II, p. 232. 
3 Mishna Sanhedrin, III. 1. 


8 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


ceived ordination could act as members of regular courts 
of justice with power of summons. Such ordination could 
be issued only by persons already ordained and only on 
the soil of Palestine.t In some periods the Sanhedrin out 
of respect for the Patriarch or Nasi limited to him the right 
to confer the authority of ‘“‘judgeship’’, which was expressed 
in the title of Rabbi, ‘‘my master’. But at no time was it 
held that anyone living outside of Palestine could ‘‘ordain”’ 
any disciple. The Babylonian Amoraim were styled Rab. 
Those of them who acted as judges did so either at the 
invitation of litigants, or under authorization of the 
Exilarch.? According to, the Babylonian Talmud, the 
Exilarch’s right to confer judgeships was based not merely 
on his recognition by the secular government, but on a 
Biblical verse,’ in view of the supposed descent of the 
Princes of the Dispersion from the House of David. 

The Rabbis of the western communities were invested with 
the delegated authority neither by the Palestinian Patriarchs 
nor by the Babylonian Exilarchs. Either of two possible 
legal steps may have been taken to establish their position 
on a traditional basis. The members of the communities 
may have bound themselves under a herem or a vow, 
that they and their descendants would accept the authority 
of their duly elected Rabbis. Such a herem would have 
binding effect and would, within limits, have given the 
necessary legal status to the new local courts. Or the 
older academies (either of Palestine or Babylonia) may have 
issued authorizations to certain Rabbis to act as leaders 
for the various communities. The first Babylonian Amo-_ 
vaim like Rab (third century), had received such authoriza- 
tions from the Palestinian Patriarchs; it would not be 
strange if it were found that the earliest European judges 
based their right to decide cases on similar authorizations 
from older scholars.4 


* Sanhedrin 14a. 

2 Ibid, Sa. 

3 Genesis 49.10. 

4 Very little is known about the relations of the early European 
settlements to the Babylonian and Palestinian academies. We do 


CHAPTER II 9 


Which of these two methods was followed is unknown. 
Perhaps both were used in the various communities. It 
is known however that by the year 1000, the term herem 
Beth Din had come into use in the description of the authori- 
ty on which the local courts acted in certain communities. 
Whether the source of the authority of these Rabbis was 
an authorization by the scholars of the east or the herem 
of the communities, (it was certain that henceforth the 
community could determine not merely who its leaders 
were to be, but whether a person had reached the stage 
of learning that fitted him for leadership.) This of necessity 
brought about a certain amount of confusion in Jewish 
life, which was not quite dispelled until R. Meir Ha-Levi 
of Vienna (end of fourteenth Century) introduced, for 
the first. time, the system of ordination outside of Palestine 
and issued licenses to his disciples permitting them to de- 
cide matters of Jewish law. So timely was this innovation 
that within two generations it had been adopted throughout 
northern Europe and has continued till our own day. This 
extra-Palestinian ordination could of course have effect 
only in a limited sense. It could not take the place of 
the ancient Palestinian “‘“Semztka’’, it was merely a certi- 
ficate by a recognized scholar declaring the holder fit to 
decide matters of ritual and civil law, to issue divorces, 
and generally to carry out those functions of the judge 
which still held in the Dispersion. The authority to 
issue a herem which was basic to Rabbinic prestige in the 


find their characteristic institutions called by names which can be based 
only on Arabic or Aramaic roots. For instance Ma‘arupia designates in 
German and French writings a group of Gentiles who customarily deal 
with a certain Jew. It was forbidden for any other Jew to try to attract 
such custom to himself. The root of the word can only be the Aramaic 
Araf ‘‘to know’”’ (See Mann, J.Q.R. (N.S.) X, 239, but comp. Mueller, 
R.F.L.p. XXXVII. The word Jkkul in the expression Herem Ha-Ikkul 
can be based only on the Arabic root, where it means restrain, a connot- 
ation of neither the Hebrew or Aramaic cognate form. The attempt 
of the editor of the Sefer Ha-Yashar (p. 56), to emend ‘akal into ‘akab 
while merely a slight change, involves so many passages that it cannot 
be accepted. 


10 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Middle Ages still sprang, theoretically at least, from the 
recognition by the community. 

As time went on the original meaning of the term herem 
Beth Din was forgotten.t The French Rabbis introduced 
the fiction that wherever a Rabbi was known to have 
lived in early times, one might assume the existence of 
a Herem Beth Din. Thus by the thirteenth century the 
distinction between communities having the herem and 
those lacking it had been completely obliterated. 


b. THE HEREM HA-IKKUL. 


Of a different character from the Herem Beth Din, 
but nevertheless very important in view of the number. 
of times it is mentioned by mediaeval scholars, is the Herem 
Ha-Ikkul. This was an unwritten law forbidding a person 
to retain an article that had been entrusted to him, even 
though he had a claim against the owner. Such a law was 
necessary in the Middle Ages when a person would very 
often have to protect his property by entrusting it to 
another. In many cases one did not have the time to 
choose a bailee who could be trusted, and unscrupulous 
persons might easily take advantage of the panic into which 
the owner of an article was thrown by a bandit attack or 
by the fear of seizure of his property by a tyranical baron. 
In days when there were no safe deposit boxes and property 
was largely limited to cash and movables—for the Jews 
rapidly lost their land after the beginning of the tenth 
century—the protection of bailments was a fundamental 
necessity. 


c. THE HEREM HA-YISHSHUB 


The anarchic conditions of the Middle Ages were such 
that insecure as was the possession of movable property, 
the protection of landed property was even more difficult. 
The large landowners preyed on their small neighbors, 
and in the absence of any real repressive force, the small 


* See below, Part II, p. 127, note 3. 


CHAPTER II 11 


landholder had to seek his safety in voluntary vassalage to 
some powerful baron who could protect him. At times 
instead of choosing a private overlord, a person might 
prefer to give his property to the Church and receive it 
back as a benefictum. Even Jewish farmers at times 
availed themselves of this method, but in general the feudal 
system left little room for Jews as owners of real property. 
The conditions that ultimately brought about the con- 
version of most of the allodial land into feudal domain, 
worked to deprive the Jews of their small farms. There 
was, however, this difference: that while the Christian 
remained a vassal or tenant on the land which had formerly 
been his own, the Jew had torseek some other occupation 
than agriculture. It was during this period that there 
occurred the separation of the Jew from the soil that has 
left such an indelible mark on his development. 

Driven from his farm, the Jew found the life of the 
artisan closed to him. The guild system as effectively 
prevented his becoming a tailor or a carpenter as the feudal 
system had forced him from his land. With most avenues 
of life closed to him, the Jew chose the only one that re- 
mained open, the life of trade. 

He was the more fitted for this occupation because he 
could import and export with greater ease than his Christian 
neighbor, his co-religionists in other countries being at- 
tached to him with the bonds that always hold members 
of minority races together. Moreover political boundaries 
did not imply for him any change of language, for his 
fellow-Jews throughout Europe and Asia understood 
Hebrew even when they could not speak it. He was thus 
able to import and export with far greater ease than his 
Christian countryman. 

Yet in determining the causes for the movements of 
large masses of people, it is insufficient to take account 
merely of the economic facts. It was not merely the 
pressure of circumstances that was forcing the Jew into 
the life of trade, but there was added to that an inner 
impulse. The Christian could satisfy his love of adventure 
in battle or combat; the Jew to whom the life of hazard 


12 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


had an appeal could only enter upon commerce. That 
many Jews of the period were such as would be likely to 
take risks and tempt their fortune, was the more natural 
since they were largely descended from the early pioneers 
who had had the hardihood to leave their secure homes in 
Asia and seek their fortune in an unknown land. The 
spirit that animated these men was not unlike that which 
was the compelling force of the early American pioneers. 
And just as the American of today has inherited from his 
pioneering ancestors the ingenuity, daring and foresight 
which distinguish him, so did the Jew of the tenth century 
in Europe display a love of hazard and a desire for trade, 
which is largely traceable to the character of his ancestry. 

While the causes that were taking the Jew into commercial 
life were natural, the Rabbis of the period were far-sighted 
enough to see the danger that lurked in the complete 
alienation of their people from the soil and they tried to 
stem the tide that was drawing the people to commerce. 
Centuries before, the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem had been 
engaged in a similar struggle to keep the land of Israel from 
falling away from the ownership of the people. Laws 
had then been made forbidding the sale of land or even ° 
of oxen to plough the land to the conquering Romans.* 
This effort had failed. Even less could the poor Jews of 
the ninth century, who saw their farms passing out of their 
hands, and the apparently uncontrollable movement into 
the towns begin, hope to prevent the passing of their 
estates to their neighbors. It is pathetic to see the struggle 
of the Jew to keep a last holdon thesoil. Since the days when 
his wandering ancestors had settled in Palestine, he had 
been an agriculturist—in Palestine, in Babylonia, in France 
and Germany; more than two thousand years of ploughing 
and reaping, of sowing and harvesting. His festivals were 
all festivals of the soil, his laws were largely those dealing 
with the farm. He did not want to go to the towns, and 
yet it seemed that inexorable Fate was driving him there. 

Attempts were made to lighten the economic burden of 
the Jewish landowners. Taxes were in those days levied 


t Aboda Zara lI. 5. 


CHAPTER II 13 


not on each individual but on the entire Jewish community, 
and the Community was obliged to apportion the burden 
among its members. The Jewish communities declared 
farms tax-exempt. Men like Rashi and R. Joseph Tob- 
Elem living in France in the eleventh century, urged that 
this exemption be not taken away.’ In days of Single 
Tax propaganda, like our own, this may sound very strange. 
But R. Joseph points out that in his day land was a pre- 
carious possession, its productivity depended on uncer- 
tain climatic conditions, and its owners were oppressed 
with all manner of demands. Two centuries later, R. Meir 
b. Baruch in Germany, quotes R. Joseph in support 
of the custom of his country, where land was not taxed. 
R. Meir defends the tax-exemption of land by citing some 
Talmudic passages, but one can readily see that it is not 
the force of the passages quoted so much as the conditions 
of the people that influenced his decision. It may be that 
one Talmudic authority declared that there is no worse 
occupation that agriculture,? but surely that is not to be 
taken literally. One could easily quote the statements of 
a number of Rabbis highly praising that occupation. The 
truth is that both R. Joseph Tob Elem and R. Meir b. 
Baruch were faced with a situation which they and their 
colleagues considered full of-peril, the estrangement of their 
people from the farm. They tried to stem the tide, and 
doubtless their efforts helped to delay, albeit they could 
not avert, the day when the Jews found themselves no longer 
men of the soil but men of commerce. 

The method of tax-exemption was more successful than 
the direct prohibition against selling farms to Gentiles 
could be. Yet even that was adopted in some communities 
though it never became general.4 An attempt was made, 
however, to prevent Jews coming into the towns. Any one 
wishing to move into a town had to be accepted by the 
population already there» It is sometimes said that R. 


1 RMP 941, Mordecai, Baba Batra 840. For Rashi’s views see 
his ordinance, Part II, p. 148. 

2 Yebamot 63a. 

3 See Funk, Juden in Babylonien, I, p. 21, note 3. 

4 Raben I. 52. 


14 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Gershom established this custom but it certainly antedates 
him.t| Only those who were required to take part in the 
religious services of the community could enter without 
hindrance, all others could enter only if the community 
voted to admit them.? This institution was called the 
Herem Ha-Yishshub. 

Numbers of cases arose under this law. Very often a 
community would feel itself justified in refusing admission 
to a man, and he would appeal to the court of the most 
generally recognized scholar. Sometimes a person would 
claim that he had inherited the right to settle in a given 
community. Since the matter was considered one entirely 
under the jurisdiction of the communities and not.at all 
based on Talmudic law, women and relatives were admitted 
as witnesses. There was a disposition to accept the testi- 
mony of a single witness and to hear the evidence presented 
by children. This tendency was checked by Rashi,} who 
insisted that this herem was in fact based on Talmudic 
law.4 After his death, Rashi’s view was opposed by his 
grandson, R. Jacob Tam (France, twelfth century). R. 
Tam claimed that the Talmudic laws’ forbidding strangers 
to settle in a town against the will of the inhabitants, 
applied only to such persons as refused to pay their share 
of the taxes.© He held that no Jew could be refused 
admission into a Jewish community if he was willing to 
accept their rules. The Herem Ha-Yishshub itself was 
limited by him as applying only to “‘those who are power- 
ful and who denounce their brethren to Gentiles and who 
refuse to accept their part of the tax burdens of the com- 
munity.” 

1 Res. R. Jacob Weil, in Isserlein, Pesakim 126; See also Mordecai 
Baba Batra, II, 517 and Res. R. Moses Mintz, 89. 

2 R. Isaac Or Zarua, quoted by R. Jacob Weil, in responsum 
mentioned in note 1. 

¢ For his contribution to Jewish synodal activity see below 
Chapter IV. ® 

4 RMB p. 67, 514; but see Res. Maim. Shofetim 13. 

5 See additional Note A, on p. 376, below. 

6 See RMR, 111, where R. Moses Taku, quotes these words from 
a responsum of R. Eliezer of Orleans, who claims that he heard them 
verbally from R. Tam. 


CHAPTER II 15 


While R. Tam may have succeeded in limiting the 
scope of the Herem Ha-Yishshub in France, the German 
scholars were not inclined to follow him. A generation 
after his death, R. Eliezer b. Joel Ha-Levi, better known 
as Rabiah,‘ declared that R. Tam had: dealt only with 
the theoretical interpretation of the Talmud, but that his 
words had no bearing on the practical application of the 
herem2 As R. Eliezer was one of the foremost authorities 
in Germany during the first half of the thirteenth century, 
it is clear that the effect of R. Tam’s decision was limited 
to France. Somewhat later, R. Meir b. Baruch tried 
to explain that R. Tam’s views applied only to such places 
as had not definitely adopted the Herem Ha-Yishshub.3 
R. Meir’s interpretation of the view of R. Tam. was accepted 
by the later scholars in Germany where the Herem Ha- 
Yishshub continued in force till the sixteenth century. 


d. INTERRUPTING THE PRAYERS 


The fourth institution which helped to shape the course 
of the development of German and French Jewry was the 
custom of interrupting the prayers in order to call public 
attention to private wrongs. Even under an autocratic 
government public opinion is a force to be reckoned with. 
It is a rare monarch who is indifferent to the love or hate 
of his subjects. Their affection or antipathy may have 
little consequence for his material life, but insofar as he 
is human, he longs to be loved. As he yields to this 
longing, the tyrant becomes the benevolent despot. The 
power of public opinion is incomparably greater where 
ultimate sovereignty is vested in the people. In little 
democracies such as were the Jewish communities the 


t Grandson of R. Eliezer b. Nathan, lived at the end of twelfth 


and the beginning of the thirteenth centuries. For his life, see Monats- 
schrift vols. 34, 35. 

2 See excerpts from his book in RMR 77, quoted also in Mord, 
Baba Batra chapter II, 519. 

3 RMP 382, 


16 _ JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


aroused collective mind of the people presents a power that 
is almost irresistible. 

The interruption of the prayers by a person having a 
complaint had much the same effect in a Jewish community, 
of the twelfth or thirteenth century as has an exposure of 
a crime or a wrong in a modern metropolitan newspaper. 
The congress, the executive, the various governmental 
agencies may for some reason or another prefer to close 
their eyes to some nefarious practice. A widely-read maga- 
zine in a series of articles endeavors to arouse public opinion. 
Soon, whether they wish it or no, the officers of the govern- 
ment find themselves compelled to take action. In the 
Mediaeval Jewish community, where there were no news- 
papers or magazines, the aggrieved person would arise 
in the synagogue and prevent the continuance of the 
prayer until his case had been examined. Since practically 
every male Jew attended daily services,the whole community 
would thus hear his complaint. 

The custom of making public complaint is not mentioned 
in Talmudic sources. Even in later Rabbinic works,’ we 


« See Ha-Zofeh, 1.88, where Aptowitzer has called attention to 
Jer. Kiddushin 61c where we read 
yy mooRr 9 S's yn Sat ond pen wa an gms pan pn yn ORY 9 
sas Spx md mops emet pa by oS Sap sens yor an b's npr jo qd adv sin 
mm by xnwis 
He interprets the passage as follows: R. Jannai and R. Jonathan were 
conversing when a man came up and kissed the feet of R. Jonathan. 
Thereupon R. Jannai asked his colleague, ‘What kindness hast thou 
conferred upon this man?’ R. Jonathan explained, ‘Once he came 
before me complaining against his son, who failed to maintain him, I 
said to him, ‘‘Go, close the synagogue against him and shame him.,’” 
The words spaced in the Hebrew and rendered by the English ‘‘close 
the synagogue”’ are extremely doubtful. It is true that the interpreta- 
tion given to the passage by Aptowitzer has the support of no less an 
authority than R. Solomon ibn Adret (Res. 4.56). The same 
interpretation is also implied in the Sefer Hasidim (ed. Berlin, 
p. 411, See Ha-Zofeh 2.97 and compare additional note D, p. 
382). Yet the difficulties in the way of accepting this interpre- 
tation of the passage are insurmountable. Firstly x does not 
mean close in the sense of closing a house, but rather in the sense 
of tying a bundle. It is used in an applied way of closing a bottle, 
but its usein connection with closing a synagogue would be exceedingly 


CHAPTER II 17 


find it limited to France and Germany.' Nevertheless, 
it represented the feeling of the people to which the highest 
expression had been given by the Prophet: “‘And when you 
spread forth your hands I shall conceal my eyes from you; 
even though you make many prayers I will not hear; 
your hands are full of blood.” One who felt that wrongs 
were being committed with the connivance of the re- 
presentatives of the community,: could not permit the 
continuance of prayers. Neither Prophet nor Rabbi could 
reconcile worship of God with injustice to man. 


extraordinary. Secondly, we will see that interrupting the prayers wa® 
customary in Germany and France, but practically unknown elsewhere. 
It would be strange if a custom mentioned in the Palestinian Talmud, 
should re-appear only in Germany and France. The evidence of the 
author of the Sefer Hasidim to the interpretation loses its value when 
we consider how natural it was for him to read into the passage the 
custom that was daily before him. Ibn Adret must have heard of the 
custom while in France or from a German traveller, or perhaps he heard 
the interpretation from one of them. 

In the Pesikta Rabbati the story is told again, and in his notes there 
(p. 122) Friedmann agrees with most of the commentators on the 
Jerushalmi in explaining the obscure phrase, as “gather a crowd”’. 
However, 1% is rarely, if ever used in the sense of ‘‘gather’’. It is 
true that the parallel passage in Peah 1.1. (and the quotation in Tosafot 
Kiddushin 32b) read pyx, but that is probably a scribal emendation. 
Professor Ginzberg suggests that 1x here is connected with the Aramaic 
root 7X) which means “‘to chirp”’ or ‘“‘to make an outcry’’. In that 
case, the passage means, ‘‘ Make an outcry against him in the synagogue 
and shame him,” which gives by far the best interpretation. This 
meaning of the word is to be compared with the expression in Jer. 
Maaser, chapter III, 5la. 

« The interruption of the prayers is mentioned in Res. 'R. Isaac 
b. Sheshet (176) as having occurred in Tunis. At the present writing 
I can recall no other mention of it by a Spanish authority, except that 
in Res. R. Solomon ibn Adret, 4.56, cited in the preceding note. (See 
note, p. 382, below). In Jttur, Dine Berurin, ed. Warsaw, I, f. 47a, ref- 
erence is made to the interruption of the prayers in the Provence. Since 
in general the customs of the Provencal Jews were similar to those of the 
Spanish Jews, this passage would seem to reflect the existence of the 
custom in Spain. Moreover Estori Farhi in his Kaptor Va-Perah (ed. 
Luncz, p. 332) cites this passage from the /ttur without further comment. 
So that we may assume that while the custom-may have originated 
in France and Germany, it filtered through to other communities. 

2 Isaiah 1.15. 


18 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Aside from the fine theological conception on which the 
institution was based, its practical application was a bul- 
wark of strength for the weak and oppressed against the 
powerful. Judges are only human and again and again do 
we find exhortations to them to beware the undue in- 
fluence of the great. It might be that the fear of the Gentile 
ruling powers would prevent a judge from investigating 
a charge, but as soon ag a matter became public the judge 
was forced to take action. Jewish history in France and 
Germany tells, page by page,of quarrels and bitterness, 
of suffering and persecution, but never was any attempt 
made to deprive the people of the right of interrupting the 
prayers. Just as the British held dear the right of petition, 
so did the Jews hold dear their means of calling public 
attention to their wrongs. 


e. TITHES (Ma‘aser) 


So long as Israel lived in Palestine it was customary to 
give one tenth of one’s produce to the Levite who in many 
cases acted as teacher. Every third year a second tithe 
was set aside for the poor. Besides these there were other 
gifts to the poor that had to be made before the harvest 
could be gathered in. It was the impossibility of fulfilling 
these agricultural laws in a foreign country that made 
the soil of Palestine so sacred to the Jew. Nevertheless 
even after the dispersion Jews made some attempt to carry 
out the spirit if not the letter of the law. But the gifts 
were no longer given to Levites but were rather devoted 
to communal institutions, such as schools and charitable 
organizations. Nor were the gifts now necessarily a tenth 
of one’s income. There is evidence to show that most 
often it was a much smaller proportion. Thus we are told 
that R. Moses Minsz (Germany, fifteenth century) fixed it 
at one fortieth of one’s income.t But the term ma‘aser 
was still used because the funds represented a definite per- 
centage of each person’s income. 


* Res. R. Moses Mintz 40. Compare below, p. 185, note 3. 


CHAPTER II 19 


Such were the five major institutions of the German 
and French Jews before the time of R. Gershom. Their 
development reflects an understanding of conditions, a sense 
of justice, an ability to perfect organization, which must 
arouse admiration. The Jews of Germany were awaiting 
only the arrival of a truly great leader to take a foremost 
part in the activities of their people. The needed leader 
arose in the person of R. Gershom. 


CHAPTER IIT 


RABBENU GERSHOM 


The development of such customs as the Herem Beth 
Din and the Herem’ Ha-Yishshub imply the existence in 
early France and Germany of Rabbinic scholars. While 
their contributions to the development of Jewish law and 
literature were very modest, they devoted themselves to 
study and in their humble way !aid foundations for the 
future development of Franco-German Talmudic learning. 
The most prominent of these early teachers were R. 
Kalonymos' and R. Leontin.?, The fame of all his predeces- 
sors was, however, eclipsed by R. Gershom b. Judah of 
Mayence, the first truly great German scholar and leader. 
With a genius not merely for learning but for practical 
organization, he achieved what few others could accom- 
plish: the establishment of Jewish learning in his country 
on a sound basis, and the uniting of the scattered com- 
munities into a federation. With his critical insight and 
care he wrote with his own hand copies of the Talmud 
which served for centuries as standard texts in the acade- 
mies of his country.4 His responsa were quoted for genera- 
tions and many of them have been preserved till our own 
day. While it is true that the commentaries that have in 
modern times been published under his name,5 are now 
known to have been written by subsequent scholars, it is 
certain that much of their content is based on comments 
of his which were transmitted orally. 

R. Gershom’s fame, however, rests mainly on his legisla- ° 


* Mueller, Kalonymos of Lucca, p. 4. 

2 Or Ha-Hayyim, p. 461. 

3 For his life, See Ha-Shiloach, vol. 28 (1913). 

4 See Sefer Ha-Ittur, Part II, ed. Lemberg, p. 17a; and Tosafot 
of R. Judah Sir Leon (ascribed to R. Judah He-Hasid) Berakot 19b. 

5 Epstein, Steinschneider Festschrift, p. 115. 


CHAPTER III 21 


tive activity. For R. Gershom re-introduced the law- 
making function of the Rabbi. It is in this field that we 
become aware of the keen insight into the needs of the 
people and of the thorough grasp of their problems that made 
R. Gershom not only the leader of his own generation, but 
as the years rolled by, the lawgiver for most of the Jews of 
Western Europe. It is not to be supposed that he was 
wealthy or had influentiai relationships. It was sheer 
power of learning and strength of character, combined 
with charity of discernment that placed him in this posi- 
tion of foremost authority. 

The problem which confronted him as lawgiver was 
different from that which had come before any Jewish 
leader for generations. For the traditional unity of the 
Jewish people had at last been disrupted. Living in lands 
of petty principalities it was natural for the European Jews 
to develop small, independent and jealous communities. 
Wheieas previously the Jews throughout the world had 
looked to some central authority to guide them in matters of 
religious observance, each community now had its own tradi- 
tions. The peopie of Mayence had their local customs which 
differed from those of the neighboring community of Worms.’ 

R. Gershom undertook no less a task than that of bringing 
all these scattered communities into a federation. Had 
he fully succeeded it could have been accounted nothing 
less than a miracle, for the idea of a democratic federation 
had never been fully developed in Israel. There had been 
obedience to constituted authority but this authority was 
always based on that of past ages. R. Gershom proposed 
to establish a voluntary constitution among the communities 
that would claim its authority solely from those whom it 
governed. It is true that he would not have stated his 
thought in these precise terms, but the fact is, nevertheless, 
that he, a scholar with no traditions in his office, undertook 
to legislate for a large number of communities in Israel. 
One can hardly believe that he failed to realize the serious- 


t For some examples of these differences of custom see Rokeah, 
108, 294, 317, Ma‘aseh Ha-Geonim, p. 17, Glassberg Zikron Brit La- 
Rishonim, p. 70, and Freimann, in Hoffmann Festschrift, Hebrew, p. 17. 


22 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


ness of the step that he was taking. He well knew that 
till his day the center of authority had been vested in the 
Palestinian and Babylonian academies. Yet the times de- 
manded drastic action and that he took. 

It must be noted, however, that R. Gershom never 
stepped beyond the limits set in the Talmud to local 
legislation. He made no attempt, of course, to abrogate 
the law, or to establish a European Judaism that would 
differ essentially from that of the past. Ic was mainly 
in the fieid of civil law, and in the matter of adapting the 
Jewish iaw of marriage and divorce to the new conditions 
that had to be faced in Christian countries, that he under- 
took to introduce innovations. In order to base on the 
Talmud his authority for the step that he was about to 
take, he had recourse to an ancient institution. The 
Scriptures tell how Ezra, in order to stem of tide of assimila- 
tion that threatened to destroy Israel during the first days 
of the Second Commonweaith, ordered all those who had 
returned from Babylonia to Palestine to appear before him 
and his colleagues. Those who failed to appear were to 
be punished by having ‘‘their substance forfeited and them- 
selves separated from the congregation of the captivity.’ 
It was on this verse that the Rabbis based their right to 
excommunicate members of the Jewish community who 
failed to obey a court-order. This verse was also believed 
to endow Jewish courts with the right to issue not merely 
judicial orders, but legislative ordinances. The Geonim, 
supported by the political power of the Exilarchate, had 
used the Shamta (as excommunication was called) but had 
not developed the conception beyond its Talmudic limits. 
R. Gershom finding himself in Germany with no other 
power than the spiritual force of the Shamta employed and 
developed that as it never had been before his day. 


1. ORDINANCES REGARDING THE MARRIAGE LAW 


The legislative activity of R. Gershom falls into two 
parts. He established several important ordinances which 


t Ezra 10.8. 


CHAPTER III 23 


deal primarily with Jewish religious law, especially the 
marriage law, But he also established Takkanot regu- 
lating the relations of the communities to one another and 
to their members. While the communal ordinances were 
of more far-reaching significance in his own day, the name 
of R. Gershom is today heard more often in connection 
with the religious ordinances. The communities for which 
he legislated have lost their position of preeminence and 
the Jewish situation today is totally different from what it 
was in his day, but the Jewish family has endured and his 
Takkanot in regard to it are of the utmost importance in 
Jewish religious life in modern times. 


a. TAKKANAH AGAINST PLURAL MARRIAGE 


The best known of the ordinances of R. Gershom is that 
forbidding a person to marry more than one wife. Plural 
marriage had not been common in Israel for centuries. 
R. Ammi lays down the principle that no one may marry 
a second wife against the will of his first wife.t The rule 
is disputed by other authorities, but reflects the tendency 
in Talmudic law toward the monogamous family. Indeed 
some of the Karaites declared that bigamy was Biblically 
prohibited.?, They interpreted the verse, ‘‘And thou shalt 
not take a woman to her sister to be a rival to her’’3 as 
referring to any two women, the word for “‘sister’’ being used 
in its most liberal sense of ‘‘neighbor’’. While it is true 
that this interpretation is somewhat fanciful, it does show 


t Ketubot 65a. 

2 Poznanski, Revue des Etudes Juives, 45.186; see Buber, Lekah 
Tob, Deuteronomy 21.15, and the note. Compare also Schechter, 
Fragments of a Zadokite Work, p. 4, 1.20, and Ginzberg, Eine Unbekannte 
Juedische Sekte, p. 24. Buber’s theory that R. Gershom was aware of 
the Karaite aversion to plural marriage and in order not to appear 
to be adopting their attitude limited the duration of his ordinance to 
the fifth millenium, is hardly tenable in view of the improbability of 
any direct information concerning the Karaites in Germany, and fur- 
ther in view of the fact established, below p. 143, that there is no reason 
for assuming that the Takkanah was intended to expire in 1240. 

3 Leviticus 18.16. 


24 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


that long before the time of R. Gershom, plural marriage 
had become so obsolete in certain parts of Jewry that this 
sect could conceive of its having been Biblically prohibited. 
Nevertheless there must have been specific instances of 
polygamy, especially among the wealthier classes and R. 
Gershom decided that the time had come for Israel formally 
to declare its adherence to the monogamous life. 

The text of the ordinance has not been preserved, so that 
we do not know what its original scope was, or what was 
the immediate occasion that called it forth. There is no 
reference to it before the time of Rashi, almost a century 
after its promulgation. Rosenthalt assumes on the basis 
of textual difficulties in later records? that the Takkanah 
was originally intended only for the three Rhine Com- 
munities — Mayence, Speyer, and Worms. But aside from 
the fact that it has now been definitely proven that the 
Jewish community of Speyer came into existence only in 
1084, about half a century after the death of R. Gershom, 
and further that the text on which Rosenthal bases this view 
dates from a period long after R. Gershom,’ it is intrinsically 
improbable that a Takkanah intended only for a few com- 
munities would have been so generally accepted as was this 
Takkanah. There are numbers of rules which R. Gershom 
laid down for the Rhine Communities but those never gained 
the wide recognition that was accorded the ordinance 
against bigamy and its sister ordinance forbidding compul- 
sory divorce. One of the laws laid down by R. Gershom for 
the Rhine Communities, for instance, forbade the issuing 
of any divorce without the consent of representatives of 
the communities. We never hear of any attempt to extend 
the provisions of that ordinance beyond the Rhine district. 
Moreover the very fact that R. Gershom established this 
very stringent rule for divorce in the Rhine Communities 
shows that the more lenient rule, permitting divorce if the 
wife consented thereto, was meant also for other communi- 
ties. Since the ordinance against compulsory divorce was 


thus intended for all the German communities, and per- 
* Hildesheimer Festschrift, p. 37 ff. 
2 See Part II, Chapter II. 
3 Epstein, Jued. Alterthuemer in Worms u. Speier, p. 16. 


CHAPTER III 25 


haps even for the French, it seems certain that the same 
was true of the ordinance against plural marriage. 
When we say the R.Gershom established this ordinance 
we must of course realize that he was merely a prime 
mover. The ordinance could only have been established 
by a synod representing the various communities for whom 
it was intended. Just as Hillel is mentioned in the Mishna 
as the person responsible for the Prosbul, and just as R. 
Johanan b. Zakkai is called the author of the ordinances 
which bear his name,‘ even though in both cases they 
were merely the men who led the Sanhedrin and urged 
the passage of the laws, even so was R. Gershom called 
the originator of Takkanot which were passed by synods 
that met under his direction. It may be well to note here 
that these synods were usually held in connection with 
large fairs. We know of a later Takkanah that it originated 
during a gathering for commercial purposes,? and the 
same was probably true of most of the synods. When we 
recall that the members of the synods of whom we speak 
ordinarily as rabbis, were quite often not salaried officials 
at all, but business men and workers of sufficient learning 
to be the leaders of their respective communities, we will 
readily see that a trade gathering would offer a most fitting 
opportunity for the discussion of intercommunal problems. 
These synods often were called upon to decide matters of 
a judicial nature? in regards to which the complainant 
found himself unable to obtain the help of his local officials. 
In the original Takkanah against plural marriage no 
provision seems to have been made for exceptional cases. 
It was doubtless believed that a synod similar to the 
one that had established the rule could amend, abrogate 
or even repeal it. No one could have realized beforehand 
the veneration in which succeeding generations would 
hold the great German scholar. As early as the time of 
Rashi, it was believed that none of R. Gershom’s suc- 


t Gittin 4.1; Rosh Ha-Shanah 4.1, 
2 See the Takkanah of R. Tam against casting any slur on the 
validity of a writ of divorce (See Appendix A, below, p. 105). 
* 3 See Teshubot Hakme Zarfat ve-Lotir, p. 15.- 


26 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


cessors could hope to equal him in authority.%3 Yet it soon 
became evident that there were cases in which exceptions 
would have to be made. If for instance a wife had ac- 
cepted baptism, and had left her husband’s home, it was 
clearly wrong to compel the injured husband to remain 
loyal to one who had proven herself faithless not merely to 
him but to her people and her God. Especially was it un- 
fair to expect the husband to remain bound to her, since 
most cases of conversion of this type were results of il- 
licit relations with Christian knights and nobles. In the 
Rhine communities it was assumed without question that 
the ordinance protecting the Jewish home against the 
evils of polygamy had never been intended to protect 
the interests of women who had left the Jewish fold. As 
soon as it was established that a woman had willingly 
accepted Christianity her husband was free to marry a 
second wife. It was, indeed, the duty of the elders of the 
community to make certain that it was a case of voluntary 
abandonment and not involuntary captivity, and that 
the wife was not secretly loyal to her family. The nu- 
merous cases of enforced baptism made great care necessary 
in deciding whether a woman was living among Gentiles 
by force or of her own will. But if her guilt was established, 
no ceremony was necessary to suspend the herem.? 


According to the later Austrian custom the husband in 
such a case was required to execute a writ of divorce which 
was accepted on behalf of the wife by some person appointed 
by the Court to act as her agent. This procedure of course 
involved the setting aside of R. Gershom’s ordinance 
against compulsory divorce. But even more than that 
it did some violence to the Talmudic principle that the 
agent for the wife must be appointed not by the Court but 
by her. It was held, that while ordinarily divorce was a 
disadvantage for the wife, in that it deprived her of her 
marital rights, and that therefore she had to be aware of 
the fact in order that it might be valid; in this instance 


* Mueller, Teshubot Hakme Zarfat ve-Lotir, 11b., 
2 Isserlein Pesakim 256; compare Ras. R. Joseph Colon, 141, 2. 


CHAPTER III 27 


since she lived among Gentiles and was disloyal to her 
husband, she would be saved from the gross sin of adultery 
by being formally freed, even without her knowledge or 
consent, from the legal and religious bonds of marriage. 
It was, therefore, to her advantage to be divorced, and the 
divorce could take effect without the presence of herself or 
her appointed agent. 

As time went on other difficulties appeared in the way 
of the new law. There was the matter of the Levirate 
marriage. If one of two brothers dies childless, the Bible 
enjoins on the survivor the duty of marrying the widow. * 
If the latter happened to be married, the question arose 
whether the Biblical law or the herem of R. Gershom was 
to be given precedence. Since in early times the Levirate 
marriage had fallen in disuse in France,? the problem 
existed only for the Jews of Germany. The general op- 
inion of the German Rabbis forbade the marriage in such 
a case, since the Bible permits the alternative of the cere- 
mony of Halizah. Indeed the German communities or- 
dained that the surviving brother could under these condi- 
tions be compelled to perform the Halizah.3 On the other 
hand, R. Jacob Molin, in the fifteenth century, would in 
such an emergency inform the surviving brother that he 
was free to marry the widow.4 This, however, may have 
been a mere fiction. R. Judah Mintz, living in Italy, in 
the sixteenth century, marshalls a host of French and 
German authorities forbidding the Levirate marriage when 
it would involve bigamy.5 On the other hand the Spanish 
authorities, who, while not accepting the ordinance of R. 


t Deuteronomy 25.5. 

2 Kol Bo 78; Res. R. Hayyim Or Zarua 146. 

3 RMP 866 end, but compare Sefer Ha-Terumah of R. Baruch, 
end. 

4 Maharil, Laws of Halizah.. On the other hand R. Eliezer b. 
Samuel of Metz, one of the most famous of the pupils of R. Jacob Tam, 
was accustomed to suspend formally the herem of R. Gershom against 
plural marriage in order that the levir might be quite untrammeled in 
his decision to have the halizah performed. See Sefer Ha-Parnes, 355; 
Hagahot Maimunti, Gittin, 4.1; Mordecai, Yebamot, 12.57. 

5 Responsum 10 


28 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Gershom for their own communities enforced it on German 
Jews who emigrated into the southern countries, declare 
that the ordinance does not at all apply to cases where the 
Biblical law is involved. They even go further and state 
that since procreation is a Biblical injunction, a person 
who is childless after ten years of married life, may marry 
a second wife... One German authority agrees with these 
Spanish scholars, and quotes a decision of R. Gershom 
himself, permitting a second marriage in such a case.? R. 
Baruch,3 a famous German Rabbi of the first half of the 
thirteenth century and author of an important code, also 
declared that R. Gershom permitted a second marriage 
under these circumstances. Yet a contemporary of his, 
R. Eliezer b. Joel Ha-Levi,‘4 insisted that the ordinance 
applied even to the case of the childless marriage. 

The matter must have been confused in very early times. 
In order to meet the difficulties, the French Rabbis 
(perhaps in the generation immediately following R. Ger- 
shom) established the method of permitting the ordinance 
to be suspended by the agreement of one hundred scholars 
living in three different provinces. It was their belief 
that certain emergencies justify the setting aside of the 
ordinance, and that there is no need of enumerating such 
cases, but that it had better be left to the judgment of 
a large number of scholars in any generation. The re- 
quirement that they be not of the same province only 
helped to make it certain that greater deliberation would 
be used in the suspension of the herem. 

The ordinance of R. Gershom gained the widest accep- 
tance. Its authority among the people was greater than 
that of a Rabbinic law. The writer of the ‘‘Book of the 
Pious’’,5 living in Germany in the thirteenth century, 
demands the same respect for Biblical and Rabbinic laws 


« See Res. R. Solomon ibn Adret, ed. Rome, 280. , 

2 Tasbez (German) 470; compare Responsa of R. Meir b. 
Baruch ed. Prague, 685. 

3 See Kaptor Va-Perah, ed. Luncz, p. 178 and p. 782. 

4 Quoted in Res. R. Solomon Luria, 65. 

5 Old edition, 49. 


CHAPTER III 29 


as is paid to the ordinance of R. Gershom. Somewhat 
later, R. Hayyim Or Zarua' pleads similarly, when he says 
that if we compel a bigamist to leave his second wife al- 
though he has transgressed only an ordinance, how much 
more ought we to insist on the separation of those who 
marry contrary to Rabbinic law. 

So far-reaching was the influence of this ordinance, 
that, as has been said, the Spanish authorities often found 
themselves compelled to enforce it on such German 
Jews as came within their jurisdiction. They did, however, 
attempt to lessen the rigor of the rule even for the Ash- 
kenazic Jews. R. Solomon ibn Adret practically nulli- 
fied the effect of the ordinance by declaring that it lapsed 
automatically in the vear 5000 A. M. (i. e. 1240 of the 
Common Era).?, This view, which Ibn Adret based on 
rumors that came to him from German scholars, is un- 
supported by any evidence and is entirely untenable.s 
Strangely enough the authority of Ibn Adret was such that 
the statement has found its way into many important 
codes, and yet Jewish consciousness felt the importance 
of the Takkanah so deeply that in spite of its supposed 
termination, it is still observed as binding law in all com- 
munities of Ashkenazic Jews. 


b. COMPULSORY DIVORCE 


Inextricably bound up with the Takkanah against bigamy 
is the ordinance promulgated by R. Gershom against 
compulsory divorce. It is well-known that both Biblical 
and Rabbinic law leave the matter of divorce almost com- 
pletely in the hands of the husband. It is true that there 
are cases in which the Talmudic scholars assumed the 
authority to compel a husband to divorce his wife if she 
demanded it, but hardly any limitation was put upon his 
right of divorcing her if he pleased. The Rabbinic theory 
seems to have been that the necessity of paying the Ke- 


t Res. R. Hayyim Or Zarua, 182. 
2 Quoted by R. Joseph Colon, in responsum 101. 
3 See p. 142 note 2. 


30 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


tubah would of itself prevent divorce under ordinary con- 
ditions. But that protected only the wives of the poor; 
what of the wives of the wealthy? It was assumed that 
wealthy parents probably would protect the interests of 
their daughters by demanding that the husband at the time 
of the marriage settle upon her a larger Ketubah than the 
minimum. Yet the situation was unsatisfactory. R. 
Gershom met this difficulty by forbidding any husband 
to divorce his wife against her will. For the Rhine 
communities, he ordained further that no divorce should 
be executed without the consent of the representatives of 
the communities. 

The Takkanah against compulsory divorce was strength- 
ened by later generations, to the extent that it was or- 
dained that any writ of divorce delivered in violation of 
it was null and void. The doctrine that a Court 
may nullify a divorce executed otherwise than in accordance 
with its rules, is Talmudic.? This doctrine was generally 
recognized in Geonic times. It is open to serious ques- 
tion, however, whether R. Gershom would have as- 
sumed either for himself, or for a synod called under him, 
the right to declare null a divorce executed according to 
the law of the Talmud. Even the later authors whose 
respect for the memory of R. Gershom gave them the 
courage to hold a compulsory divorce ineffective did this 
only to the extent of prohibiting the husband from re- 
marrying, but for every other purpose they recognized its 
validity. 


C. ORDINANCE AGAINST INSULTING PENITENT CONVERTS 


The number of forced conversions in R. Gershom’s 
day must have been considerable in view of the Takkanah 
he made prohibiting anyone to insult converted Jews 
after their return to Judaism. The Takkanah protected 
not merely those who had been converted by physical 


t Part II, p. 247. 
2 Ketubot 3b. 
3 Mann, Jewish Quarterly Review (N.S.) 7.471. 


CHAPTER III 31 


force, but also such as had been led to forsake their people 
and their religion because of other circumstances. The 
text of the ordinance is no longer in existence, indeed, it 
seems to have been. lost as early as the time of Rashi, 
who is the first to allude to the Takkanah.' 


d. ORDINANCE PROTECTING JEWISH TENANTS 


Another Takkanah? generally ascribed to R. Gershom is 
that forbidding any Jew to rent a house of a Gentile, who 
had unjustly ejected a former Jewish tenant. This Tak- 
kanah would seem to point to the existence of very cramped 
Jewish quarters even in those early centuries. It was 
only by agreeing not to rent houses from which Jews had 
been unrighteously evicted, that the Jews could in any 
way defend themselves against ruthless house-owners. 
This ordinance was re-enacted in a more rigorous form in 
Italy in the sixteenth century. The establishment of 
Ghettoes in that country during that period made some 
such law all the more necessary. 


e€. ORDINANCE PROTECTING THE PRIVACY OF LETTERS 


One of R. Gershom’s Takkanot, which was quoted very 
often in modern times in continental countries, was that 
forbidding a person to read the letters of another without 
permission. This ordinance was of especial importance 
in days when mail delivery by government agencies was 
practically unknown, at least in Europe. Letters of a 
private character often had to be sent through messengers, 
whose curiosity would only be too likely to tempt them 
to break the trust that had been placed in them. It is 
additional evidence of the religious reverence gained 
by these ordinances, that it was expected that they would 
command respect in cases which the ordinary legal methods 
could not reach. 


t Mueller, Teshubot Hakme Zarfat Ve-Lotir,11b; see also below p.179. 
eeratt ilo p.18i. 
3 Part II, p. 189. 


32 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES THE 


f. ALLEGED ORDINANCE AGAINST EMENDING THE TEXT OF 
THE, TALMUD 


R. Jacob Tam, living*in the twelfth century, reports 
that R. Gershom “cursed”’ those who would in the future 
tamper with the received text of the Talmud.* On 
the basis of this report the impression has spread that 
the prohibition of emendations was one of R. Gershom’s 
ordinances. We know, of course, that R. Gershom was 
very zealous for the care of the text of the Talmud.’ 
But even R. Tam merely says that R. Gershom cursed 
those who would change it, not that he declared any or- 
dinance against it. Moreover most of the Tosafists in- 
dulged in emendations,and some of them introduced their 
changes into the text itself. Is it possible that all of 
these men dared to transgress an injunction of R. Gershom? 
The word Jat ‘‘curse”’ is itself merely a figurative expression 
for “‘denounce,’’ and it is used by R. Tam in that sense, 
just as it often occurs in the Talmud. 


2. CIVIL ORDINANCES OF R. GERSHOM 


Of a different character from the Takkanot thus far dis- 
cussed, are those which have been compiled in a group, 
usually called ‘‘Takkanot R. Gershom’’.3 R. Gershom 
apparently strove not merely to gather the representatives 
of the communities in synods in order to pass upon measures 
which he thought salutary, but he desired to establish a 
permanent organization of communities, such as might 
continue to function after his death. The code of Takkanot 
of R. Gershom on examination appears to be a crude 
miniature constitution for such a confederation. It does 
not contain all the elements that we would expect to find 
in a constitution, since it assumes the existence of many 
institutions, and merely attempts to give official assertion 
to some important aspects of the Federation as it was 
conceived. 


t Introduction to the Sefer Ha-Yashar. 
2 See above p. 20, note 3. 
3 See p. 111. 


CHAPTER III 33 


The analysis of the text in the form that it has been 
received must be deferred to Part II.t Of the twelve 
or thirteen sections of which it consists in most of the 
recensions, a nucleus of five are certainly the work of a synod 
that gathered under R.Gershom. These established the 
following rules: 


a. The jurisdiction of the local courts of the communities 
is to extend not merely to the members of the community 
but to any Jew who may happen to come within their city. 


b. The right of interrupting the prayers because a de- 
fendant refuses to come to Court, or because the Court 
refuses to summon a defendant is guaranteed, but it is 
limited in the following manner. The plaintiff must three 
times make complaint in public at the end of the service 
if he finds no response from the community, he may pre- 
vent them from holding public worship until his wrongs 
are righted. 


c. If the synagogue-house is owned by a member of 
the community he may not prevent any other member 
’ from attending public service, except by closing it to every- 
one. 


d. Anyone losing an object may publicly declare a 
herem in the synagogue, compelling any person having 
knowledge of the finder, to inform against him. 


e. The minority in any community must accept the 
ordinances of the majority and abide by them. , 

These ordinances cannot be considered merely civil 
Takkanot, they are of a constitutional nature. They 
specify and guarantee certain rights of the individual. 
When we think of the power of the Mediaeval community 
and of the fact that for the Jew it was the only source of 
justice, we will realize the importance of these ordinances. 
In view of what has been said above about the herem beth- 
din, i. e. the authority of the local court, it was a matter 
of the highest importance that this authority be extended 
not merely to members of the community but also to 
transients. One could always rely on the public opinion 


t See below p. 111. 


34 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


of acommunity to compel a fellow-member to do one justice, 
but what could one do against a member of another com- 
munity, or one who had fled his own community and settled 
in another? The right of appealing to the Court of any 
community in whose jurisdiction a defendant might happen 
to come, provided a method of dealing with many whom 
the courts previously had been unable to reach. 


The privilege of interrupting the prayers is regulated 
and thus recognized. Its importance has already been 
analyzed. But no less important in a country of small 
and poor communities was the regulation forbidding the 
owner of a synagogue to tyrannize over any member of 
the community by denying him the right to enter the 
synagogue. In times when public worship every day 
was as common and indispensable as one’s meals, it was a 
real spiritual loss for a person to be prevented from taking 
part in the public service. The ordinance declared that 
one who closed a synagogue to one member closed it to 
all. If the owner wanted his house to continue as the house 
of prayer he would have to admit the people whom he dis- 
liked on the same terms as the people whom he liked. 


It may be thought that the section declaring the will 
of the majority binding on all members was unnecessary. 
So indeed it might be in a community where self-government 
is inculcated in a child almost from the nursery. In a 
community where all government came from Kings and 
Emperors, the rule of the majority was by no means 
firmly established. There were many authorities who 
claimed that no communal ordinance could be accepted 
as authoritative unless it had been unanimously adopted. 
Yet it was obvious that if there was to be any local govern- 
ment at all, the rule of the majority would have to be es- 
tablished.. It was a question debated for centuries after 
R. Gershom, whether the right to make such ordinances 
by will of the majority is based on the Talmud or not. 
While the academic discussions were continuing, the rule 
established by R. Gershom was in practical effect, bringing 
life and vigor into German communal life. 


CHAPTER III 35 


3. THE FEDERATION OF COMMUNITIES AFTER THE DEATH OF 
R. GERSHOM 


The care with which R. Gershom built is evidenced 
by the strength of the federation after his death. Although 
the empire was disunited, and travel was difficult and 
dangerous, while local patriotisms tended to divide the 
Jewish community, nevertheless the synods apparently 
continued to meet even after R. Gershom could no longer 
lead them. It was such a synod doubtless that provided 
for the suspension of the ordinance against plural marriage 
in certain emergencies. No synod would have dared to 
change that ordinance in any way more than a generation 
after the time of R. Gershom. Even Rashi would not have 
been bold enough to limit the scope of one of the ordinances 
passed under supervision of the great scholar. It must 
have been therefore within twenty-five or thirty years 
after his death that the change in that law was made. 

Nevertheless the lack of a great leader ultimately brought 
about the disintegration of the federation. Only the 
Rhine communities, and a few smaller communities 
that were subsidiary to them, continued in the closer union 
that had been perfected under R. Gershom. But of their 
activities Jittle is known. The records of the period are 
scanty at best, and its history can be reconstructed only 
by conjecture. The schools at Mayence and:other parts of 
Germany carried on their works but the time was approach- 
ing when the German communities would have to admit 
that the center of Talmudic scholarship had removed to 
France. The place that had been filled in the early part 
of the eleventh century by R. Gershom, was vacant till 
Rashi arose in the second half, a new master-builder in 
Israel. 


CHAPTER IV 


THE FRENCH SYNODS 
1. RASHI 


A generation elapsed between the time of the death of 
R. Gershom and the general acceptance of Rashi' as a 
leader in Israel. It is a generation of which we know little. 
We hear of such men as R. Jacob b. Yakar, but we know 
little of what progress was being made in carrying on the 
“work so auspiciously begun by the great master. We 
hardly know of any of Rashi’s public activities. The com- 
mentary which is his everlasting monument—for he was 
indeed the greatest of commentators—was written in the 
quiet of his study. Whether he took any more immediate 
part in the solution of the social problems of his own genera- 
tion is not known. We are told by his grandson, R. Jacob 
Tam, that he ordained? that if a Jew lent money to another 
on a half loan, half investment basis,—that is, on the 
understanding that the money invested should be used by 
the agent, and the profits divided between himself and the 
principal,—in such a case Rashi ordained the principal 
could only be taxed one half of the money which he had 
invested. In other words, the basis for taxation purposes 
was to be income-producing capital. 

Such a Takkanah is found in a collection of responsa of 
R. Meir b. Baruch in which it is said to have been copied 
from a manuscript of “R. Solomon of Troyes’’.s The 
ordinance begins with the words, ‘‘we the inhabitants of 
Troyes and its surrounding communities.” It therefore 
would seem that the ordinance as published was in fact 


t See Liber, Rashi, Jewish Publication Society, 1906 and Lip- 
schutz, R. Shelomo Yishaki, Warsaw, 1912. 

2 Part II, p. 148. 

3 Res. R. Meir b. Baruch, ed. Berlin, p. 320. 


CHAPTER IV 37 


passed at a local synod of the communities near Troyes. 
R. Tam had occasion to quote only one section,* but doubt- 
less he knew the whole of the text. As the ordinance was 
intended only for Troyes and its immediate vicinity, it 
is not surprising that it is not quoted more extensively. 
It provides that no Jew shall take advantage of any 
exemption offered him by a feudal lord to escape taxation 
by the Jewish community.? Houses, fields, vineyards, 
utensils and money lent to Jews by Gentiles were exempted 
from taxation. Gold and silverware, jewelry and rings 
were to be taxed at half their value; non-interest bearing 
loans were exempt from taxation for one year, but there- 
after were subject to tax. It was assumed of course that 
a loan for more than a year was either a gift or a fiction 
used to evade the payment of the tax. New residents 
were not to be taxed. until they had done some business 
in the city. Gifts of money to one’s children were taxable, 
if the children lived in the same city. If one accepted 
books as pledges for a loan, the lender was taxed on as 
much of the capital as was represented by the books. 


THE FIRST CRUSADE 


We know of no further action by Rashi in the matter 
of convening synods. Yet the times in which he lived 
must have demanded serious action. Towards the end 
of his life the First Crusade was being organized. At 
the Council of Clermont in 1095, Pope Urban II issued a 
call to a Crusade for the purpose of rescuing Jerusalem 
from the hands of the Infidels. Bands began to gather 
under Peter the Hermit, who, starting in France, marched 
northward through Germany on his way to the Holy Land. 
The Jews of France feared that before proceeding to make 
war on the distant Turks, the Crusaders might attack 
the neighboring Jews. They therefore sent a letter to 


t Mordecai, Riva, Baba Kamma, 10.248; and Nimmukim of 
R. Menahem Merseburg, printed at the end of the Hanau edition of 
Res. R. Jacob Weil. 

2 See Part II, p. 243, section 15. 


38 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


the Jews of Germany calling on them. to join them in prayer 
and fasting that the calamity might be averted. It is 
safe to say that other and less spiritual means were taken 
to prevent the threatened disaster. Letters were sent 
to Germany advising a careful welcome to Peter and his 
followers. When we hear of the ravages these bands 
committed in Hungary, we may well be surprised at the 
comparative quiet with which they marched through 
France and Germany. Even the second and third bands 
of this Crusade passed through France without committing 
any serious outrages, although they mercilessly ravaged 
the Rhine cities. 

The letters that were sent from France to Germany must 
have been authorized and the money that was needed to 
gain the favor of the Crusaders raised by synods of some 
kind. But no trace of these has been left, so that the 
Rashi’s part in these activities is completely unknown. 
The legend of Rashi’s relation with Godfrey of Bouillon is 
hardly worth mentioning, and we have no more trust- 
worthy accounts of Rashi’s activity in these late years. 


CHANGE IN THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STATUS OF THE 
JEWS RESULTING FROM THE CRUSADES 


The Second Crusade like the first brought little suffering 
to the Jews of France. To the Jews of Germany, with 
their bitter memories of 1096, it brought infinite terror 
but nothing worse. The Jew-baiters were successfully 
prevented from repeating the atrocities of the First 
Crusaders, and German Jewry breathed more freely as 
the soldiers of the Cross left their land. 

But the Crusades left a deep impress on the economic 
and social conditons of the Jews of France and Germany. 
They had become less the tradesmen, and more the money- 
lenders of their respective countries. We have seen? 
how the precarious state of land-ownership in the days 
of R. Gershom was driving the people from the soil; the 
ownership of merchandise had by now become almost 


* Chapter I, p. 11. 


CHAPTER IV 39 


as insecure. The expulsions from the towns made the 
moving of goods very difficult, and while debts too could 
not easily be collected, yet the huge interest taken in the 
Middle Ages in part offset the risks. But more important 
than this, was the rivalry in trade that had been born 
out of the Crusades. The Crusades re-introduced Wes- 
tern Europe to the Levant, and now many a Christian 
could engage in commerce. Naturally this tended to 
drive the Jews from ordinary trade into money lending.' 

There is on the other hand, a tendency to overestimate 
the number of Jews who became moneylenders. The im- 
pression gained from reading books like The Merchant of 
Venice and Ivanhoe is that all Jews were usurers. The 
authors of these books are of course not to be blamed for 
they merely reflect the popular notion. It is a little true 
that every Jew, or even that the majority of Jews, were 
usurers, as that every Jew is called Isaac. Yet because 
there are more Jews named Isaac than Gentiles, the ordinary 
Christian will call the ordinary Jew by that name. Even 
though the proportion of moneylenders among Jews to 
their total number were only slightly larger than the 
proportion of moneylenders to the rest of the general 
population, the belief would soon spread that all money- 
lenders were Jews. In times when statistics were unknown 
the belief would soon gain vogue that all Jews were usurers. 
The increased competition from the Christians who had 
become accustomed to travel during the Crusades, the 
hazard now attached to the possession of movable property 
and the rise of feeling in the Church opposed to lending 
money on interest would sufficiently account for the fact 
that a larger number of Jews became moneylenders than 
did Gentiles to whom other and more reputable occupa- 
tions were open. 

Yet the Jew, innocently forced into this hateful traffic 
by the economic conditions which he could not control, 
was the more hated for taking the only path that had 


t See Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, pp. 237-244 for 
a fair and impartial account of the spread of moneylending among 
Jews. 


40 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


been left open to him. Not only had the persecutions to 
which they had been subjected during the Crusades made . 
the Jews a group definitely-recognized as socially inferior, 
but the general belief that all of them were usurers helped 
to provoke the mass-hatred against them. The war- 
animus which had been aroused by the Crusades could not 
easily subside, and spent itself not only in battles and wars 
at home, but in ravages against the “unbelieving” Jews. 
The condition of the Jew was thus entangled in the most 
unfortunate of vicious circles. “The more he was oppressed, 
the more he had to leave ordinary trade in order to engage 
in moneylending, the more he engaged in moneylending 
the more was he oppressed. | 

Jewish leaders must have realized the great danger that 
confronted them, and sought to meet. it. But there are 
no records of any synods, if there were any documents they 
have been lost. There is no trace of any gatherings of 
Rabbis during this period in the responsa or other legal 
literature that has survived. Perhaps, on the other hand, 
the French and German Jews were without capable leader- 
ship in these trying times. Rashi had died in 1105. His 
grandson, R. Samuel b. Meir, who succeeded to his posi- 
tion as the leading Jewish scholar, was a student, but hardly 
a man of the world. He could lend the prestige of his 
vast erudition to the efforts of another but he seems 
to have lacked initiative and organizing ability. He 
completed his grandfather’s commentaries on Baba Batra 
and it may be that his commentary on the last chapter 
of Pesahim was intended to complete unfinished work 
of Rashi.? His discussions of the meaning of the Talmud 
are everywhere illuminating, but while these literary 
activities were very important and of lasting influence, 
conditions called also for immediate action. 

No leader of the type that was needed appeared till 
R. Samuel’s younger brother? reached maturity. No less 


* For his life, see Rosin, R. Samuel b. Meir, Breslau, 1880. 

2 Dienemann, Lewy Festschrift, p. 259. 

3 For his life see Weiss, Toledot R. Jacob Tam (1883) and A. 
Berliner, in J. J. L. G. I, (1903) p. 1, seg. 


CHAPTER IV 41 


a scholar than his brother, R. Jacob Tam (b. 1100, d. 1170) 
had the genius of a R. Gershom. He had been but a lad 
of five when his illustrious grandfather had died, and he 
had been taught by his older brother. But before many 
years had gone by, his fame equalled that of his master. 
His criticisms of Rashi attracted attention far and wide. 
Quick, fearless and independent, he was gifted with extra- 
ordinary insight into the needs of the people A char- 
acteristic incident shows the difference between the two 
brothers. R. Samuel in his piety always walked about 
with his eyes on the ground. It thus happened that on 
one occasion, he ordered a carriage and since, according 
to his custom he did not look up, he failed to realize that 
it was driven by a horse and a mule. Talmudic law for- 
bids pairing animals of different species not merely for 
reproduction but in their work. Just as R. Samuel was 
about to enter the carriage and unknowingly transgress 
the law, his younger and more circumspect brother hap- 
pened to pass, and laughingly reproached him saying, 
‘‘Be not over-pious, lift up thine eyes and behold there 
stand a horse and a mule before thee.’’! 

Even in his interpretations of the Talmud R. Tam always 
kept in mind the needs of the people. Thus he justified 
the custom that permitted Jews to engage in commerce 
with Christians during the seasons preceding their religious 
festivals, although commerce with idol-worshippeis under 
like circumstances is forbidden.? He was inclined to 
permit a Gentile contractor to build a house for a Jew on 
the Sabbath,’ and to mitigate the rigor of some Rabbinic 
laws, such as that forbidding the cutting of one’s hair 
during the festival week.4 From such a man we would 
expect an active interest in Jewish communal work. 

About the year 1150 he persuaded his brother, R. Samuel, 


t Hagahot Mordecai, Erubin, chapter I, end. 

2 Tosafot Aboda Zara, 2b. 

3 Ibid. 21b. 

4 Tur Orah Hayyim, 531, compare Hagahot Asheri, Moed Qatan, 
chapter III, beginning; and Hagahot Maimuni, Hilkot Yom Tob chapter 
VIL. 


42 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


to join him in requesting all the communities not only of 
France but also of Germany, to send representatives to 
a synod that was to meet at Troyes, to discuss some of 
the new conditions that had arisen as a result of the Second 
Crusade. The German communities as well as those of 
France responded, and the conference was attended by 
men of such eminence as R. Eliezer b. Nathan of Mayence 
and R. Eliezer b. Samson of Cologne. It was indeed 
a promising moment in Jewish life, when the representatives 
of France and Germany gathered to discuss the problem 
before them. We have an ordinance? that was the re- 
sult of their deliberations, but it is doubtless only one of 
several decisions taken. It is the only ordinancc the text 
of which has been preserved, but it can hardly be believed 
that the rabbis would have undertaken all the dangers 
that were encountered in travel from country to country 
in the twelfth century, merely to publish a Takkanah 
against informers. As in the case of other synods, we must 
assume that the practical steps that were taken to meet 
immediate exigencies were either not recorded, or the 
records were lost by following generations, while we have 
the decisions that were retained because of their Halakic 
importance, 

The text of the ordinances which we have, deals with 
the problem of the informers. It forbids any Jew to bring 
litigation against another before non-Jewish courts; and 


« Their names are mentioned in connection with this synod only 
in the abstract of the Takkanah, in RMP 1022. The defective punc- 
tuation of Bloch’s reprint of this edition has misled the writer of the 
article on Cologne in Germania Judaica, p. 74, into thinking that R. 
Eliezer b. Nathan and R. Eliezer b. Samson were members of the synod 
of 1220. The contributor takes pains to show that it would have been 
impossible for R. Eliezer b. Nathan to be present at that council since 
he died fifty years earlier, in 1170. The writer might have noticed 
that R. Tam also died in 1170, and that he could not have been 
present at the council of 1220. This would have led him to read some- 
what more carefully and realize that it is not stated that either R. Tam 
or R. Eliezer b. Nathan or R. Eliezer b. Samson were present at the 
Council of 1220, but rather that they were representatives of various 
communities at the council of Troyes held about 1160. 

2 For text, translation and notes, see Part II, pages 152-158. 


CHAPTER IV 43 


moreover, it enjoins on any Jewish plaintiff whose cause 
is brought before Gentile authorities, even without his 
knowledge, the duty of indemnifying the defendant 
against any harm threatened him by these authorities; 
finally it forbids the acceptance of any office in the Jewish 
community at the hands of non-Jewish authorities. 


This synod must have been considered a success for it 
led to the calling of another, this time after the death of 
R. Samuel, that is, after 1160. Again the synod met at 
Troyes. It was attended by representatives of communi- 
ties of Normandy and Poitiers as well as of the kingdom 
of France, proper.t. The text of the decisions which 
has been preserved, provides that the Takkanah regarding 
the return of the dowry, which had previously been in 
vogue at Narbonne,? should be extended to apply to 
the remainder of France. If a woman died within a year 
of her marriage without issue, any gifts given to her and 
her husband by her family, were to be returned to them. 
Moreover, if any dowry had been promised to the husband, 
and he failed to obtain it during the life of his wife, he was 
not to collect it after her death. 


Some of the names of those who were present at the 
synod are preserved. They are given somewhat differ- 
ently in different sources and will perhaps be best discussed 
in connection with the texts. 


There are several other Takkanot of R. Tam which were 
no less important. We do not know whether they too 
were adopted at one of these councils or are the decrees 
of other gatherings, or whether they were adopted by 


t For text, tanslation and notes, see Part II. pages 163-167. 

2 The statement made by Gross, Gallia Judaica, s.v. Troyes, that 
the community of Narbonne was represented at this synod must be re- 
vised. It is based on a misreading of a passage in Mordecai, Ketubot 
5.155. Anyone reading the texts reprinted in Part Ii, and then com- 
paring them with the text of Mordecai, will see that the community 
of Narbonne was not represented at the synod. Weiss in his R. Tam, 
seems likewise to have been misled by the somewhat obscure passage 
in Mordecai into thinking that the Takkanah was a responsum to the 
community of Narbonne. 


44 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


correspondence. Of some we have the text, others we 
only know from quotations. 

An interesting ordinance is that which undertook to 
regulate the length of time which a person might absent 
himself from home. From early times it had become 
customary for those who aspired to Jewish scholarship 
to leave their families and to give themselves unreservedly 
to study in the quiet atmosphere of the great academies. 
The wives supported themselves as well as they could, 
suffering patiently in the expectation of sharing with their 
husbands the bliss that is stored away for those who deny 
themselves the. pleasures of this world for the sake of the 
Torah. The most famous case was that of the wife of R. 
Akiba,? but she was merely typical of a large number of 
pious women who made the preservation of the Torah in 
Israel possible amidst the perils that surrounded it. The 
custom became even more.prevalent in Germany and France 
in the Middle Ages. Besides these cases where the husband 
left his wife with her consent and for ideal reasons, it 
frequently happened that men left their homes out of malice. 
The breaking up of families thus became a serious matter. 
In the Talmud we already find restrictions on the privileges 
of the husband in this respect.2, R. Tam’s ordinance,3 only 
reemphasizes and defines these restrictions. It is of some 
interest to note that R. Tam felt that the law would be 
more respected it it were re-enacted as an ordinance. The 
decisions of the Synods must have enjoyed great prestige 
in Israel when one could think that their words would carry 
more weight with the people than a statement of the Mishna. 

A better known Takkanah of R. Tam is that forbidding 
anyone to cast a slur on the validity of a divorce after 
it hadbeen delivered in a Jewish court. The practice of 
finding technical irregularities in such documents was 
widespread and was a source of endless trouble throughout 
the history of Rabbinic Judaism. So complicated are 
the laws of divorce that a clever person might without 

t Ketubot 62a. 


2 Ketubot 5.6.° 
3 Part II, p. 167-170. 


CHAPTER IV 45 


serious difficulty discover a flaw in most writs of divorce.! 
The results of the arousing of suspicions with regard to 
a Get? were most serious. The divorced wife might have 
married again. She and her new husband might have been 
living happily for years and become the fond parents of 
innocent children. Then someone out of malice would raise 
the cry that the wife’s divorce had been irregular in such 
and such a detail, and that consequently she had never 
been truly divorced, her second marriage was void, and her 
children illegitimate. There was even the possibility that a 
cruel husband might at the time of the divorce intentionally 
introduce some irregularity into the proceedings so as 
to make trouble for the unfortunate wife in after years. 

R. Tam in his decree prohibited such action. As soon 
as a divorce had been accepted in a Jewish court, the matter 
was closed. Whoever attempted to re-open it was to be 
declared excommunicated. If he knew of any irregu- 
larity it was his duty to protest before the delivery and 
to the original court; his silence at the time established a 
conclusive presumption of guilt against him. The text 
of the Takkanah has been lost, but we have an abstract 
of it3, whence we know that it also was adopted at Troyes, 
and that one of the main associates of R. Tam in the 
enactment of this Takkanah was one R. Moses, whom 
Gross identifies with R. Moses of Pontoise.4 


t J. L. Gordon, the modern-Hebrew poet, has portrayed the 
conditions surrounding and resulting from such an over-emphasis on 
technicalities in his Kozo shel Yod (collected works, vol.4,p.50). A 
similar condition exists in the English law of wills, and the numerous 
litigations arising as a result of them form an almost exact parallel to 
the litigations arising under the Jewish law of divorce. Yet it is dif- 
ficult to waive technicalities in such matters. For example, see 
Isserlein, Pesakim, 14, where the case arose of a person whose name was 
Gershom, but who had divorced his wife with a writ where he was called 
Gershon. Since Gershon and Gershom are distinct names in the Bible 
it was quite impossible to accept such a divorce as valid. 

2 Get, meaning writ in a general sense, is often used to designate 
the writ of divorce in particular. 

3 See below p.105, where the abstract of this Takkanah is re- 
printed from a manuscript and from Mordecai, Gittin, 4.155. 

4 Gross, Gallia Judaica, s. v. Pontoise; and compare Revue des 
Etudes Juives, 64.281. 


46 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Two provisions of the ordinance are cited: first, 
that no one may raise any objection to the validity of a 
Get after its delivery aud acceptance; second, that no one 
who was not present at the divorce, may afterward 
object and say, ‘‘Had I been present I would have done 
so and so’’, or “‘I would not have permitted this and this 
witness to sign’’. R. Mordecai Yaffe (16th century, 
Poland and Lithuania) seems to have overlooked the second 
part of the Takkanah, for in a responsum! he denies that 
there was any objection to one raising a claim against the 
validity of a divorce if he was not present. His contempor- 
ary, R. Moses Isserles, made another exception to the rule 
of the herem.2, In one case R. Tam himself insisted that 
a second bill of divorce be delivered to the woman because 
there were some who complained that the first was not 
valid. It is not known, however, whether this happened 
before or after the establishing of the herem. If it took 
place before that the case can have no importance for us. 
If after the synod, it would mean that while R. Tam 
announced a herem against those who would raise a cry 
of invalidity against a divorce, he admitted nevertheless 
the need foranew divorce. His Takkanah then did not 
undertake to interfere with the law as established. This 
inference is very likely correct, for it is hardly credible that 
R. Tam should undertake to permit a woman to marry 
who was shown not to have been divorced properly. 

A very important matter with which R..Tam was 
called upon to deal was that of the Jew who became 
surety for another to a prince or noble in order to obtain 
for him the right to leave the country. This always 
involved heavy risks not only to the Jew who was trying 
to save his fellow, but to the whole community. Thus 
the baron might suspect that such and such a person 
intended to leave his country. Not wishing to lose the 
source of income which even a poor Jew might represent, 
the baron would grant him leave of absence, only on con- 


« Published in Res. R. Meir Lublin, 123. 
2 Res. R. Moses Isserles 55. 
3 Gittin 90a. 


CHAPTER IV 47 


dition that some other Jew be responsible for him. It 
would not be very difficult for an individual to find a tender- 
hearted fellow-Jew to pledge for him. It was the general 
_rule that in such cases the guarantor could demand from 
the freed Jew full compensation for any suffering that 
might come upon him through the default of his charge. 
This would appear to us to be but common justice, yet 
it was the subject of no small amount of litigation. The 
defense usually given by the defaulter was that the noble 
used his failure to re-appear merely as a pretext for extort- 
ing money from the guarantor and that, had the noble 
lacked that pretext, he would certainly have found another. 
That was no doubt true, yet it is also true as R. Meir b. 
Baruch says, that this defaulter was the means of the 
“driving the lion into the property of his fellow.’’! 

The following are the circumstances which occasioned 
this peculiar Takkanah.?, Towards the end of the twelfth 
century the king and the nobles of France, began to develop 
the theory that the Jews were the property of the governing 
power of the land in which they lived. The nobles thus felt 
empowered to refuse to permit a Jew to leave their land, 
without depositing a pledge that he would return. For 
any Jew to go bail for another, under the circumstances, 
would be to admit the right of the nobles in this matter. 
R. Tam and his colleagues doubtless felt that it were better 
to undergo all the inconveniences and trouble that might 
result from a refusai to recognize the ownership of their 
bodies, rather than to submit to virtual enslavement. It 
must be admitted, however, that while the Takkanah was 
a wise measure, it failed in its purpose, for the king and the 
barons did ultimately enforce their power over the Jews. 
They became little better than serfs in all of France, and 
their condition became steadity worse till they were finally 
expelled from the country in 1306. 


t See Res. R. Meir b. Baruch of Rothenburg, ed Prague, 495, 
725, 977; ed. Cremona, 294,- 296; Mordecai Baba Kamma, 10.160; 
and Res. Shearit Israel_32. . 

2 Printed in Res. R. Hayyim Or Zarua 179; Res. R. Meir b. 
Baruch, ed. Rabinowitz 114 and reprinted below, p. 106. 


48 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


CODIFIED TAKKANOT OF R. TAM 


Just as R. Gershom left besides his Takkanot on cere- 
monial matters, a compilation of ordinances, even so R. 
Tam besides estab.ishing the ordinances described,, was the 
-author of a code of ordinances. Unlike the code of R. 
Gershom, however, this is not entirely of a constitutional 
nature, and its various sections do not materialiy differ in 
character from his other ordinances. They have been pre- 
served to us in several recensions, in each of which there 
are numerous additions from other sources. The analysis 
and proof must in this case too be deferred to Part II.' It 
will there be seen that the Takkanot of R..Tam are ten in 
number: 


a. Any community in which a prominent Rabbi is known 
to have lived, may assume that he established a regular 
Court (Herem Beth Din), so that its Court may compel its 
citizens to obey the summons and decrees. 


b. R. Gershom’s herem against compulsory divorce 
does not apply in certain emergencies. 


c. The right of interrupting the prayers at any time is 
guaranteed to one who apprehends defamation before Gen- 
tiles at the hands of a fellow-Jew. 

d. The Court may compel obedience to a herem. 


e. All who live in a community for a month, may be 
compelled to pay their “tithe” i. e. to contribute toward 
the communal expenses. 

f. One may not remove a Jallit or Mahzor from a syna- 
gogue without the owner’s permission. 

g. One may not strike one’s neighbor. (There are 
several incidental rules regulating the punishment for 
assault, the most important of these fixes the fine at twenty- 
five dinars, unless the crime was committed in the synagogue 
when the fine is to be doubled). 

h. No one may cut off a margin of a book, even if it 
is his property. 

i. The laws of summons are fixed; the judge is enjoined 

t pp. 171-189. 


CHAPTER IV 49 


to issue one on request, and the jurisdiction of local courts 
is defined. 

j. The Court may compel anyone to give testimony re- 
garding the property of men who are guilty of abandonment. 

While these ordinances do not have the constitutional 
character of the Takkanot of R. Gershom, it is evident 
from the work of R. Tam, that he sought to accomplish 
what R. Gershom had attempted more than a century be< 
fore him,—the establishment of a central authority in the 
West. His task was more difficult however, since the num- 
ber of Jewish communities had increased considerably since 
the year 1000. The spirit of local patriotism which had 
hindered and made incomplete the work of R. Gershom, 
was still prevalent. R. Tam felt therefore that if the 
council of all the communities was to be given authority, 
a first step toward that end would be the weakening of the 
power of the individual communities. 

One of the Takkanot of R. Gershom, as we have seen, 
provided for the rule of the majority in communal affairs. 
This principle found support in a Talmudic passage em- 
powering the people of a community to establish rules 
for measures, prices, and wages, and to provide punish- 
ment for their infraction.* It had generally been assumed 
that the rules and the punishment were both to be fixed by 
a majority vote, as practically all questions in Talmudic 
law are settled by majority. R. Tam, however, gave a 
novel interpretation to the passage. According to him the 
decisions of the law must be made by common consent, but 
the punishment may be fixed by the majority. R. Tam’s 
theory was that while no individual could be bound by the 
community to obey any ordinance, once he had by consent- 
ing to the passage of the ordinance agreed to it, he could 
be punished for transgressing it. The legislative power of 
the community was based on nothing more than a vow 
undertaken by each member to do or refrain from doing 
certain things. 


t Baba Batra 8b. 


2 Mordecai, Baba Batra I. 481; see also responsum quoted in 
Mordecai (ed. Riva) Baba Kamma, 10.248. 


50 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Had this opinion been accepted, the legislative power 
of the Community would have been seriously limited. 
For when could one hope to induce all the members of a 
community to agree on anything? We have seen how 
some Rabbis protested against the rule which forbade 
anyone to settle in a city without obtaining unanimous 
consent to waive the prohibition against settlers from other 
cities (Herem Ha-Yishshub, see above, p. 10). They felt 
that such a provision made it impossible to have the herem 
set aside in any case. The establishment of any Takkanah 
would be far more difficult if any individual could, by 
refusing his assent, prevent its passage. 

R. Tam had a remedy for this. The greatest scholars 
of any generation are in fact the successors of the ancient 
Sanhedrin, he claimed. They may accordingly promul- 
gate decrees which must then be obeyed by all under 
penalty of excommunication.’ It was under this authority, 
according to R. Tam, that R. Gershom had issued his 
famous Takkanot, and indeed, the power of the Palestinian 
Patriarchs was based on no surer foundation than their 
status as the foremost scholars of their time. Thus, he 
argued, when it was found that Hillel was a greater scholar 
than the Bene Batyra, they made way before him.? R. Tam 
did not apparently take into consideration the argument 
against his theory that is presented in the cases of R. Ga- 
maliel IT and his son, R. Simeon. It will generally be 
admitted that R. Akiba and R. Ishmael—not to speak of 
R. Joshua and R. Eliezer—outshone their, colleague, R. 
Gamaliel, in scholarship, yet he was the Patriarch over them. 
Moreover when he was removed because of a quarrel with 
R. Joshua, it was not the greatest scholar that was appointed 
-in his place but rather the voung R. Eleazar b. Azariah 
who was descended from a prominent family.’ Certainly 
no one will maintain that R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who was 
patriarch in the following generation, was a greater scholar 
than his contemporaries R. Meir and R. Judah. 


1 Sanhedrin, Asheri 2.41. 


2 Pesahim 66b. 
3 Berakot 27b. 


CHAPTER IV 51 


But we are not here concerned with the historical ac- 
curacy of the interpretation put forward by R. Tam. 
Stripped of its argumentative intricacies, the view ex- 
pounded by this scholar was that the individual communities 
had no right of legislation, but that the legislative powers 
were lodged in the hands of the greatest scholars of each- 
generation. This view was radically different from that 
which had been current in France and Germany before his 
day. R. Gershom, himself, who had been the first to insti- 
tute country-wide ordinances in the West held, in a respon- 
sum,’ that the heirs of the great Sanhedrin were the locai 
courts. He held that it was not the scholarship of the 
Patriarch that gave him the prestige which he enjoyed, but 
rather the fact that the Sanhedrin over which he presided 
was representative in one sense of all Israel, and at any rate 
was recognized as the supreme authority by Jews every- 
where. In enforcing the herem of a community even when 
its ordinances seemed to be in opposition to the Talmudic 
law, he cited those very verses of Scripture which are used 
in the Talmud to establish the rights of the Sanhedrin in 
civil matters. As is well known, this is based on the judi- 
cial power of confiscation. It is true that R. Gershom at- 
tempted to bring about closer co-operation among the 
communities, but he felt that the central synod which 
he endeavored to establish only enjoyed its authority by 
virtue of its recognition by the communities. 

R. Tam’s views were accepted by some of his contem- 
poraries and pupils, notably by R. Eliezer b. Samuel of 
Metz.* But there also arose opposition to the revolu- 
tionary doctrine, especially in Germany. We have res- 
ponsa 3° signed by two of the pupils of R. Eliezer of Metz, 
who take issue with the view of R. Tam, and uphold in 
principle, at least, the older view. 

The case’ whch was the occasion of the response is of 
sufficient interest to be fully described. The community 


t Mordecai, Baba Kamma 2.257; Mueller, Teshubot Hakme Zarfa! 
Ve Lotir 97. . 

2 Res. R. Hayyim Or Zarua, 222 end. 

3 Loc. cit., see appendix, p. 107, for the text of these responsa. 


52 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


- 


of Worms found thatmany of its tax-payers were es- 
caping their proper share of the communal burdens by 
taking an oath that their, capital (which was used as the 
basis for the computation of the tax) had been overes- 
timated. In order to remedy this evil, a decree was passed 
taking away the right of the tax-payer to decrease his 
assessment by an affirmation under oath. R. Eleazar of 
Worms and his colleagues sent the matter before the 
Rabbis of the neighboring community of Mayence, since 
Talmudic law forbids citizens of a community to be judges 
in matters where their own community is involved. The 
Rabbis of Mayence, R. Baruch b. Samuel, R. Judah b. 
Kalonymos, and R. Moses b. Mordecai upheld the right 
of communai leaders to establish ordinances with the 
consent of the majority of the members of the community, 
but they decided that this power was limited by the 
obvious truth that in money matters a man cannot be 
made to pay what he does not have. It is true that the 
Rabbinic principle is that ‘‘one cannot make a decree 
which the majority of the community finds it impossible 
to endure.’ That does not apply to matters of taxa- 
tion, however, where the ordinance can be annulled if it 
is found to be confiscatory even for a minority. The 
judges of whether a community had acted within its rights 
or otherwise were the Rabbis before whom the Community 
was called to defend its ordinances. 

Apparently, this decision which ended with an exhor- 
tation to the Community to be lenient with the men, and 
which failed to give a final decree to either party, proved 
unsatisfactory for the matter was sent further to R. 
Eliezer b. Joel Ha-Levi, (Rabiah) then Rabbi of Cologne. 

Rabiah lays down the principle that the Communal 
Board, consisting of the so-called “Seven Best Men,’’ had 
in their local community as much power in civil matters as 
the Sanhedrin had over all Israel. They were limited only 
by the principle that the decrees issued by them must not 
be too severe for the endurance of the greater part of the 
community. In order to discover whether in any particular 

* Hortot 3b. 


CHAPTER IV 53 


instance they were within their rights or not, recourse 
should be had to a referendum; if a majority sustained the 
Board their decision was final. In this Rabiah was clearly 
following the Takkanah of R. Gershom (TRG 5), which 
indeed he echoes but does not quote. 

While the view of Rabiah was accepted by both par- 
ties to this controversy, the principle in dispute was too 
deep-seated to be settled by any one man. Fifty years 
later we find the question of the powers of the Community 
over the individual again a subject of discussion. At 
this time the foremost authority in Germany was R. Meir 
b. Baruch of Rothenburg. 

At least three cases involving this question came be- 
fore R. Meir for decision but these decisions do not all 
follow the same principle. In one case that came before 
him,’ a certain community had decided to forbid any but 
its own members to deal with the Gentile inhabitants 
of the city. It therefore decreed that any non-member 
who had lent money to Gentiles of the city, should trans- 
fer the debt to a member of the community within a cer- 
tain time; otherwise the debt would be liable to taxation 
by the community. R. Meir b. Baruch discusses the 
matter from two angles. If those who held the debts 
against the Gentiles had been members of the community 
- at the time of the issuance of the decree they were doubtless 
bound by it, in accordance with the Takkanah of R. Ger- 
shom (TRG 5) that any ordinance passed by a majority 
of the members of a community is binding on all of them. 
If they had not been members of the Community when 
the decree was passed, they were nevertheless bound by 
it to sell their debts to members of the community provided 
that they were given sufficient time. In this responsum 
R. Meir aligns himself completely with Rabiah and the 
old Germanic tradition that gives the community power 
over the property of its members; and he adds the novel 
principle that, provided the community is not unjust, it 
may even protect its citizens by calling on non-members 
doing business within its jurisdiction to obey its decrees. 

™ Res. R. Meir b. Baruch, ed. Berlin, p. 209. 


54 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


In a second case,! most of the members of a community, 
but not all of them, had been present at an election, and 
had appointed one of their number overseer of religious 
and communal affairs. This overseer or dictator had levied 
certain taxes which one member of the community refused 
to pay, insisting that he was not bound by the action of 
the majority of the community because he had not been 
represented. R. Meir held that a man might be bound 
by the decision of a community in one of two ways: if 
the decision reached by the community was unanimous, 
or if the decree was made by a board which,had been 
unanimously elected. In this responsum R. Meir clearly 
followed the view of R. Tam who required unanimous con- 
sent for the passage of any ordinance,but made it practicable 
by adding to it the possibility that unanimously elected 
members of a Board might act for the community. This 
made it possible for a community to legislate. The Tak- 
kanah of R. Gershom endowing communities with the 
power of making ordinances was still effective, for a Tak- 
kanah proposed by the Board would be binding on the 
community even though accepted only by a majority. 

The third responsum on this subject appears to have 
been written by R. Meir b. Baruch,? after he had been 
imprisoned. A certain community—as usual the name 
has not been preserved—found itself in a curious dilemma. 
The members could come to no agreement as to the election 
of the Board, there was constant interruption of prayers, 
and ‘‘justice was cast to the earth’’. R. Meir ordered 
the members to assemble, and each one to bind himself 
by an oath to vote according’ to what he felt to be the 
best interests of the community. The board securing the 
majority of votes was to be considered in power. 

It is clear that the German Rabbis felt that they could 
not accept R. Tam’s view without qualification, for there 


* Res. R. Meir b. Baruch, ed. Prague, 968. 

2 Teshubot Maimuni, Kinyan 27, and Res. R. Meir b. Baruch, 
ed. Berlin, p. 320. In the former text the signature used is xp ‘yn 
3772 12 which according to R. Solomon Luria was used by R. Meir 
only after his incarceration (Yam Shel Shelomo, Yebamot 4.18). 


CHAPTER IV 55 


was no strong central organization in Germany at the time. 
Nor could they vest unlimited power in the communities 
since these often worked injustice. Thus the position of 
the more prominent Rabbis became more and more that of 
a Court of Appeals to decide whether in any particular 
case a community had acted within its rights.? 


t Res. R. Hayyim Or Zarua, 55. 


CHAP PERS: 


GERMAN SYNODS FROM. 1196-1250 
SYNOD OF 1196 


We hear of no general synod in France after the death 
of R. Tam. The condition of the Jews was deteriorating. 
We might have expected that the Third Crusade which 
took place about 1190, would arouse a new interest in 
synods but we have no information about any attempt to 
gather the scholars of the period. The Jews were expelled 
from the domains of the King of France, and the need of 
receiving the exiles must have helped to undermine their 
institutions even in those parts of the country where they 
were tolerated. On the other hand in Germany, the prob- 
lems raised by the Third Crusade did result in the convoca- 
tion of a synod under the presidency of R. David b. Kalony- 
mos. This synod met in 1196, probably at one of the large 
Rhine Communities, Worms or Speyer or Mayence, but 
nothing certain is known about the place of meeting. In- 
deed the text of the decisions can be reconstructed only 
insofar as it is quoted in the Takkanot of later synods, and 
partly given in a responsum signed by a certain R. David 
(who may or may not be identical with the President of 
this synod) and by R. Baruch b. Samuel.? 

The first matter dealt with by the Council was that of 
the widows whose husbands had died, and who, having no 
children, were at the mercy of their brothers-in-law if they 
wished to receive permission to marry again. The Biblical 
jaw requires that in such a case the brother of the deceased 
shall marry the widow; if he refuses to do so, the widow 
must summon him before the elders of the town, and make 
complaint against him for refusing “‘to establish a name 
for his brother in Israel.’’ “The elders of the city shall then 


* Teshubot Maimuni, Ishut, 26. 


CHAPTER V Si 


call to him and speak to him and if he stand and say, I like 
not to take her; then the widow shall come unto him in the 
presence of the elders and loose his shoe from off his foot, 
and spit in his face and say, So shall it be done unto the 
man doth not build up his brother’s house’’.t_ The marriage 
was called Yzbbum; the alternative ceremony of the loosen- 
ing of the shoe, Halizah. 

Even during Talmudic times the custom of Halizah gradu- 
ally tended to become.more common than Yzbbum. For 
Yibbum is primarily suited for a polygamic society. It pre- 
supposes a condition where the status of the wife is not very 
distinct from that of the slave, for the Levirate marriage 
(Yzbbum) is essentially the inheritance by the nearest kins- 
man of the childless widow together with all the other 
property of the deceased. In the Bible the status of the 
wife is already raised. The Levirate marriage is to be per- 
formed no longer by any kinsman (cf. the story of Ruth) 
but by the brother. Yet as Judaism developed it looked 
more and more askance at Yzbbum and with greater favor 
- at the alternative Halizah. 

In Talmudic times there was no longer any odium at- 
tached to the Halizah. Indeed Abba Saul, one of the 
Tannaim of the second century, recommends it.? There 
are cases where the Rabbis permitted the widow to refuse 
to marry her brother-in-law and to insist on the Halzah. 
Yet Yibbum continued as a custom. It had indeed become 
very rare, and in France was not practised at all. But 
according to some of the Rabbis, the Court had no power 
to compel a brother of the deceased to have the Halizah 
performed, and even those of the Rabbis who felt author- 
ized to use force, preferred not to resort to it. The Yabam 
(i. e. the brother-in-law) therefore had the widow at his 
mercy. He often used his power to extort money from her. 
This abuse was not frowned upon as it might have been, 
since in Rabbinic law, a wife does not inherit her husband’s 
property, but has only a dower right. There would always 
be difficulty in determining the exact amount due the widow, 


t Deuteronomy 25.8. 
2 Bekorot 1.7. 


58 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


and so the brother-in-law who used his power against his 
deceased brother’s widow would escape the general con- 
demnation which he so richly deserved. 

R. David of Muenzberg undertook to regulate this abuse. 
He laid down definite rules for the amount to be paid to 
the brother of the deceased. He was to get one half of 
the property and give the other half to the widow. Or 
if he chose, he might take the whole of the property and 
pay her her dowry. MHeirlooms, such as land or books, 
he might retain. He could not, however, retain any of 
the property that she had inherited or received from her 
family. These provisions which became known as the 
“Takkanot Shum tn regard to Halizah’’ soon spread far and 
wide and entered into the codes. They formed a much_ 
needed compromise and served as a solution to a vexing 
problem. It is true that to us at this date the decree seems 
to give the brother-in-law an unjust advantage, in that he 
has the choice of refusing to pay even her dower to the 
widow if that should be more than half of the total property 
of the deceased. Measured by its success, however, the 
Takkanah was certainly a true reform. Henceforth the 
power of the Yabam was to some extent controlled. 

It seems that this synod also took action in regard to 
adapting the ordinance of R. Tam in regard to dowry 
to the needs of the Jews of Germany. R. David of Muenz- 
berg is mentioned as the man who was responsible for the 
German Takkanah requiring the husband to return to the 
family of his wife one half of what he received from them, 
if his wife died within two years after their marriage. 
The Takkanah of R. Tam had limited the time to one year 
but had enjoined the return of the whole of the dowry. 
Another change that R. David introduced and which was 
dictated by the peculiar conditions prevailing in Germany, 
was that the Takkanah was made to apply to the wife 
as well as to the husband. In Germany child marriages 
were quite frequent. The parents of both the husband and 
wife would contribute toward the sustenance of the new 
couple. It was now ordained that if the husband died 
within two years after the marriage, the wife could not 


CHAPTER V 59 


collect her dower right from the property which had been 
given them by the husband’s family at the time of the 
marriage. For just as the wife’s family had given her their 
gifts in the expectation of a long married life, similarly the 
husband’s family had not expected him to die soon after 
his marriage. In both cases then, the German rabbis 
decided, half of the gifts were to be returned. 

The gatherings of the Rhine communities had continued 
in all probability since the days of R. Gershom. At times 
the Confederation may have dwindled to the Three 
Communities but generally some other communities were 
represented. A new impulse was evidently given to these 
meetings by R. David who apparently followed French 
precedent and it seems that the meetings continued 
with some regularity after his day.’ 


SYNODS 1200-1223 


In Part II? of this book there are published several texts 
of Takkanot of three distinct synods. The date of the 
first of these is unknown but it must have taken place 
sometimes before 1220. Its provisions may be summarized 
as follows: 

1. a. That a man shall not eat with his wife in the days 
of her impurity until she undergoes the proper 
ceremony of purification; 

b. That one may not lend money at interest to a 
fellow-Jew except under an agreement to share 
in losses as well as in profits; 

c. That a Jew shall not cut his hair or shave his 
beard after the fashion of Gentiles; 

d. That one shall not permit his hair to grow unduly 
long. 

2. That if one is summoned to Court he shall respond 
within three days. 

™ In a letter sent by R. Nathan b. Isaac to R. Eliezer b. Joel Ha- 
Levi, mention is made of several synods of which no other trace has 
been found (Or Zarua I, 652, and comp. also responsum of Rashi, 


RFL. 27). 
2 pp. 218-250. 


60 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


3. That if there are witnesses to the effect that one Jew 
threatened to denounce another to Gentiles, and it is found 
that the intimidated Jew suffered at the hand of Gentiles, 
it may be assumed that the one who threatened carried 
out his threat and he shall therefore be held liable for 
all damages that have occurred to his neighbor; the amount 
to be determined either by the statement of witnesses or in 
the case of there being none, by the oath of the plaintiff. 

4. That books which have been left in trust may not 
be seized by the community for taxes. 


5. That taking a false oath regarding taxes renders 
one unfit to testify or take an oath in Jewish Courts. 


6. That any Jew compelled to make a contribution to 
the king or noble shal) be aided by the rest of the community 
in bearing his burden, provided the Jew shall not himself 
have brought about the undue demand. 


7. That a member of a community who feels that his 
assessment is too high, must nevertheless pay the amount 
of taxes claimed, but he may then bring suit against the 
community for the return of what he considers the excess 
amount. 


8. That no Jew may accept religious office at the hands 
of Gentile powers. 


9. That no Jew may gamble. 


10. That neither the President nor the Rabbi of a com- 
munity may excommunicate a person except at a public 
gathering. | 

11. That no one may “close a synagogue” in protest 


against alleged injustice unless he has “‘seated the Kahal”’ 
thrice. 


12. That no one may make a public festivity except in 
celebration of some religious duty. 

13. That the Hazzan may recite the prayers of the 
second day of Rosh ha-Shanah and of Yom Kippur after 
Yozer, only with the consent of the community. 


14. That no one shall interfere with the sessions of Jewish 
courts. 


CHAPTER V 61 


15. That a Yabam may not refuse to perform the Halizah. 
(The other regulations previously ordained by R. David of 
Muenzberg and his council are here inserted). 

16. That a guard shall see to it that Gentiles add no 
water to the food prepared for a wedding feast on the 
Sabbath. 

17. That no one shall divorce his wife without the con- 
sent of the Three Communities. 

18. That no one shall villify a fellow-Jew. 

19. That every member of the community shall pay his 
tithe for the support of communal institutions. | 

20. That no man shall act as Shohet except after examina- 
tion by a Rabbi or an Expert. 

A more detailed study of these ordinances wil] be found 
in the notes to their translation, but the bare summary 
will give the reader some comprehension of the breadth 
of interest of the Medieval Community and of its power 
over its members. 

A second synod took place at Mayence in 1220. This 
synod reordained most of the provisions of the decision 
of the previous synod, but omitted sections 6, 9, 12 and 
24. It also introduced several new sections, among which 
were the following: 

1. That one may not use the utensils of Gentiles for Jewish 
wine, or permit Gentiles to assist in the preparation of 
Jewish wine; that one may not eat food cooked by Gentiles; 
that one may not clip coins (section1); 

2. That the young men escorting a bridegroom shall 
receive only six deniers from him, and shall not be per- 
mitted to steal chickens or anything else even in play 
(section 6); 

3. That if in any community the amount collected for 
educational purposes is found to be insufficient, they shall 
use for this purpose any bequests left the community by 
philanthropic individuals, unless the bequest was left for 
a specific purpose (section 23). 

4. That every Jew shall set aside definite times for study; 


* RMP 1022, and below Part II, p. p. 225-250, Version M. 


62 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


and that the synagogue . service shall be carried on with 
proper decorum (section 27). 

Three years later another synod was held at Speyer 
(1223) where the ordinances of both the previous synods 
were combined and reenacted.t They are published as 
Text Ria Part II of this book. 

The members of the three synods were with a few ex- 
ceptions the same Rabbis. The best known among them 
were R. Eleazar b. R. Judah of Worms, the author of 
Rokeah (d. 1235); R. Eliezer b. Joel Ha-Levi (Rabiah) 
who has already been mentioned, and who like R. Eleazar 
of Worms was a disciple of the famous R. Eliezer of Metz; 
R. Simhah b. Samuel of Speyer, whose discussions are 
often quoted with respect in the Or Zarua and other early 
codes. R. Baruch b. Samuel of Mayence, the author 
of the Sefer Ha-Hokma, which is no longer extant, but 
which was highly respected and was still quoted by R. 
Bezallel Ashknazi in the sixteenth century, attended only 
the first two synods. He died in 1221, two years before 
the synod at Speyer took place. 

The members of these synods form a distinct group 
in the history of German Jewry. By the year 1240 they 
had all passed away, leaving their positions to their chil- 
dren in some cases, but more often to less illustrious dis- 
ciples. While we have several responsa by these German 
Rabbis of the middle of the thirteenth century, the only 
man of outstanding eminence among them was R. Jsaac b. 
Moses Or Zarua. R. Isaac who appears to have spent his 
childhood in Bohemia, came to Germany while he was still 
very young and studied under the famous saint, R. Judah 
He-Hasid. After spending some time’ in Paris where 
he studied under the famous R. Judah b. Isaac Sir Leon, 
he returned to Germany and continued his studies under 
the leading scholars of the Rhine country, R. Eleazar b. 
Judah, R. Simhah of Speyer and R. Eliezer b. Joel (Rabiah). 
He became more deeply attached to Rabiah than to any of 
his other teachers and included many of his responsa in the 


* Rosenthal, Monatsschrift, 45, 249 ff. and Part II, of this volume, 
pp. 225-250, Version R. 


CHAPTER V 63 


code which he wrote in later years and which made him 
famous. It is said that R. Meir b. Baruch studied under 
him before leaving Germany to complete his studies under 
the French Tosafists. 

While R. Isaac is remembered even in our own time as 
the author of one of the most important of German codes, 
and while this work of his soon became recognized in all 
parts of Germany and France, as well as Austria and Bo- 
hemia, he seems to have taken little part in the organiza- 
tion of the German communities in his day. He was in 
all probability recognized as the foremost German scholar 
in the year 1250, before the rise of R. Meir b. Baruch, yet he 
did not seem to possess the executive ability of either a 
R. Tam or a R. David of Muenzberg. Be the causes 
whatever they were, the fact remains that R. Isaac did 
not succeed in calling any synod such at those that had 
taken place in the, first quarter of the thirteenth century. 


SYNOD OF 1250? 


It was probably after R. Isaac had left the Rhine pro- 
vinces and retired to the more eastern countries, that an 
attempt was made to gather a synod of the Rhine scholars. 
This synod was held at Mayence, probably about the year 
1250. Among those who attended were R. David b. 
Shealtiel, a disciple of R. Eliezer b. Joel Ha-Levi; Meshullam 
the son of R. David b. Kalonymos who had attended the 
synod of the early part of the century; and R. Judah b. 
Moses Ha-Kohen, who, in company with the other two just 
mentioned, held a long discussion with R. Isaac Or Zarua 
regarding the case of a Jewish girl who had been outraged 
during the massacre at Frankfort in 1241, and whose 
betrothed on that account refused to marry her. 

There is only one ordinance preserved as the decision 
of thissynod. Itisare-enactment in stronger terms of the 
old provision found in the earlier Takkanot against per- 
mitting the Rabbi to excommunicate a man without the 
consent of the community. It was now decided that the 


* For discussion of the date of this synod see below, p. 222. 


64 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES — 


Rabbi should have no power to declare any excommunica- 
tion without the consent of the community, nor should the 
community have the power to excommunicate any member 
without the consent of the Rabbi; any excommunication 
issued in disregard to this ordinance was to have no validity 
even if the Rabbis of neighboring communities should 
join the local Rabbi in regard to the excommunication. 


It is apparent that the question of the right of excom- 
munication was becoming a more and more troublesome 
one. The weapon had been of the greatest use in the con- 
struction of the German Jewish communities, but it threat- 
ened to become a Frankenstein that would destroy them. 
If every Rabbi could use the right of excommunication 
at his will, he might use it to further his own interests. 
The majority of a community might tyrannize over a 
minority as much as it pleased. Obviously the power 
of excommunication was such that it could not be left to 
the discretion of any single individual. The attempts 
to limit it occupy a very interesting chapter in the later 
development of German Jewish life; but it must be admitted 
that all attempts to regulate it failed in the end, so that 
it continued to be used at the whim of men who were not 
always as scrupulous as those who had brought it into 
being. As it was employed with less and less care, people 
respected it less and less, Rabbis began to use it against 
one another and gradually it became meaningless and 
without force even in ghetto life. 


Ordinances like the one just discussed limiting the power 
to declare excommunication against a person are to be 
found among the Takkanot of Italy even in much later 
centuries. In modern times the Russian Czarist govern- 
ment forbade the issuance of a herem; and it would be an 
interesting question, which has, however, fortunately 
never been tested, whether American courts would permit 
the issue of such a herem. 


It is probable that this synod of the middle of the thir- 
teenth century is responsible for the inclusion of the 
Takkanot of R. Gershom into the text of the decisions of 


CHAPTER V : 65 


the Synod of 1220.t There is reason to believe that these 
Takkanot (TRG) were not originally incorporated in the 
ordinance but were introduced later; as we find the decision 
of the synod of 1250 attached to that of the synod of 1220, 
it seems not unreasonable to assume that the later council 
has added them to the body of the earlier Takkanah itself. 


* See below p. 218. 


CHAP AE heat 


SYNODS 1250-1300 
R. MEIR B. BARUCH 


Thedeparture of R. Isaac Or Zarua from the Rhine country 
had left Germany without any outstanding spiritual leader. 
There were several scholars whose names are remembered 
in connection with important centers, such as R. Yedidiah 
of Speyer and the men who had gathered at the assembly. 
of 1250. But none of these seems to have been able to 
command the universal respect or indeed to have had the 
outstanding personality necessary to found a school about 
which the others might gather. It is for this reason that 
their names are known only to those who with diligent eye 
search into the faded records of the past; by the masses 
they have been forgotten. Not so was R. Meir b. Baruch 
of Rothenburg. His name was even till our own times 
a household word in Jewish families, the story of his life 
and trials became the common property of the Jewish 
people. 

R. Meir b. Baruch was born at Worms about 1215, the 
son of a man well-known for his piety, scholarship and 
oratorical powers. -He studied in Germany under R. Isaac 
Or Zarua, but soon proceeded to complete his studies in 
the Tosafistic school under R. Jehiel of Paris. He was 
in Paris when the Talmud copies that had been seized 
under the Papal order of 1240 were burned. His dirge 
composed at this time, is still recited annually on the ninth 
of Ab.? 

It was soon after this that he returned to Germany to 
accept the rabbinate of Kostnitz. But he could not have 
remained there long, for he was successively Rabbi of 
Kostnitz, Augsburg, Wuertzburg, Rothenburg, Worms, 


t The poem begins with the words wxa npn *dxv. 


CHAPTER VI 67 


Nuremberg and Mayence. Professor Ginzberg suggests 
that he is called R. Meir of Rothenburg because he stayed 
longer in that city than in any other. Pupils gathered 
to him from far and wide. Among them were R. Asher 
b. Yehiel, who later emigrated to Spain, where he became 
the rabbi of Toledo, and wrote the famous Code of Ashert, 
and R. Mordecai b. Hillel was the author of the code called 
Mordecat, which is a treasure trove for the scholarship of 
German Rabbis before the end of the thirteenth century; 
and R. Meir Ha-Kohen, the author of the Hagahot Maimoni 
in which the opinions of the French and German scholars 
are given as notes to the Yad of R. Moses Maimonides. 

R. Meir himself wrote commentaries on the sixth order 
of the Mishnah, Tosafot to many treatises of the Talmud, 
(of which those on Yoma are printed as the ordinary 
Tosafot), and several codes. But his most important work 
was the writing of his responsa which have been printed in 
four collections differing from each other, although many 
of the individual decisions are duplicated. Many of his 
answers are also found in the codes of his disciples. He 
was often cailed upon as court of the last appeal to decide 
differences between communities and especially between 
communities and their members. 

We might suppose a priori that a man of the type of 
R. Meir would take some action towards bringing the com- 
munities in closer touch with one another and such is 
indeed the fact. By comparison of several sources it can 
be shown that R. Meir brought about the convening of at 
least one council—during his’ stay at Nuremberg—and 
perhaps this was only one of several." 

R. Hayyim Or Zarua, the son of R. Isaac, who has been 
mentioned, was a pupil of R. Meir b. Baruch’s. He 
writes in one of his responsa, that ‘‘when the number of 
women who deserted their husbands increased, R. Meir 
wrote to R. Yedidiah, who was at the time in Speyer, and 
to the chain of communities to gather and ordain that a wife 
deserting her husband should lose her rights, not merely 
to the Ketubah but also should forfeit whatever property 


t Bruell, Jahrbuecher, 8.61, and references there given. 


68 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


she brought to her husband.’’* This is the only synod 
convoked under R. Meir of which we know but it reflects 
a serious condition that*must have arisen at the time. 

The law of the Intractable Wife is one of the most com- 
plicated in Jewish marriage law, and one that seems to 
have undergone more changes than any other. Without 
going into all the detailed changes that took place in this 
law in the times of the Amoraim and the Geonim, it will 
suffice to say here that in his younger days R. Meir held 
that if a woman refuses to continue to live with her hus- 
band and fails to offer a reasonable objection to him, she 
should be divorced and should forfeit her right to the 
Ketubah. She should, however, receive whatever property 
she brought with her. This view accorded with that of 
Alfasi and apparently gained widespread recognition in 
Germany. 

But this rule was not very well suited to the economic con- 
ditions of the German Jews. A large number of the German 
Jewish women partook in the economic life of the country. 
It was not unusual for a wife to support her scholarly hus- 
band while he devoted himself to his studies. If she had 
no property of her own she would imitate the wife of the 
great R. Akiba and toil in order to support the family, 
while her husband was making headway as a student of 
the Torah. It is related as an instance of the extreme piety 
of Maharil (R. Jacob Molin) that he refused to accept 
anything from his wife but preferred to earn his own liv- 
ing as a marriage broker.2 As scholars rarely if ever, 
received any stipend from their communities, they could 
continue their studies only if they were rich in their own 
right like R. Meir b. Baruch, married rich women, or 
were supported by their wives. Under such conditions 
it was likely that the number of women who would express 
dissatisfaction with their husbands would increase. 

The situation was doubtless one which called for action. 
The responsum of R. Hayyim gives only a hazy idea of the 
Takkanah. Indeed he declares that he does not know 


* Res. R, Hayyim Or Zarua, 69, 126., 191. 
2 Maharil, Laws of Hanukkah. nj 


CHAPTER VI 69 


whether or not the Takkanah was generally accepted. In 
another responsum on the subject, R. Hayyim does not 
even mention the Takkanah.' It is, however, mentioned 
in Hagahot Ashert, thus: “R. Meir ordained toward the 
end of his life that even the property which a wife brought 
to her husband is forfeit’’ if she proves intractable.? For- 
tunately, we have a responsum of R. Meir himself in which 
he refers to this ordinance. He says: ““The Communities 
ordained when they were at Nuremberg that in any such 
case where a woman leaves her husband because of the 
persuasion of relatives the husband shall retain all her 
property, and he shall divorce her even against her will, 
if she fails to return to him after being warned to do so 
by the Court. It is proper that all Israel should obey 
Bivtes bakkanamd nar, and moreover it is even Talmudic 
law, for since there is no apprehension that she will be driven 
from the Jewish fold since there is no Gentile involved, 
the law ought to be placed on its Biblical plane that all 
that a woman owns is the property of her husband”’.s 

It is clear from this statement that the Takkanah applied 
primarily only to women who were induced to leave their 
husbands because of quarrels generated by their families. 
It is apparent from the fact that we know this provision 
only from a passing reference in Hagahot Maimoni, that 
the synod adopted'a Takkanah of many provisions, and 
that with our present meagre information it is quite unsafe 
to attempt to reconstruct it. It is enough to know that it 
dealt with the problem of the “intractable wife’ and that 
the laws in regard to her were made much more stringent 
than they had been. | 


R. PEREZ B. ELIJAH OF CORBEIL 


While German Jewry was thus attempting to keep alive 
its system of synods, these had fallen into disuse in France. 
‘In the century following the death of R. Tam we hear of 
no synod. The thirteenth century was a disastrous one 

t Res R. Hayyim Or Zarua 191. 


2 Hagahot Asheri, Kiddushin 3.16. 
3 Hagahot Maimoni, Ishut 14.30 


70 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


for French Jewry. New laws were constantly being made 
against them and new decrees issued. They became the 
possessions of the kings and of the barons and were reduced 
to the status of serfs. The burning of the books of the 
~ Talmud in Paris about the middle of the century was the 
outstanding event in Jewish life of the period, but it was 
only typical of the troubles that the Jewish community had 
to undergo. The school of R. Judah Sir Leon at Paris 
attracted many pupils and its reputation was even in- 
creased under the leadership of R. Jehiel b. Joseph, who 
has been mentioned above as one of the masters of R. 
Meir b. Baruch. Other pupils of the academy of R. Jehiel 
were R. Isaac of Corbeil, the son-in-law of R. Jehiel and 
the author of the Semak (Sefer Mizot Oatan); and R. Perez 
b. Elijah, the author of additions to the Semak, a code of 
his own and Tosafot on several tracts of the Talmud, some 
of which are printed in the ordinary editions as the Tosafot. 
But after the middle of the century the period of decadence 
began. 

It is probable that political conditions made the convening 
of a French synod at this time very difficult. For we 
find R. Perez attempting to establish a Takkanah by 
correspondence with the contemporary Rabbis.‘ This 
proposed Takkanah dealt with the subject of wife-beating. 
This crime was one that rarely, if ever, gave trouble to 
Jews of the Middle Ages. There are on record cases of 
maltreatment of wives by their husbands that came before 
R. Simhah b. Samuel and R. Meir b. Baruch. Both of 
them reprimand the husband severely, insisting that the 
community should treat those who strike their wives more 
stringently than those who commit assault on others. 
There may have been some temporary cause that moved 
R. Perez to urge the adoption of the Takkanah that in 
the case of a husband guilty of beating his wife, the wife 
should be entitled to alimony, from her husband’s property 
‘‘as though he were in a distant land’’. In other words, 
R. Perez wanted to introduce into Jewish law the priniciple 


™ Guedemann I, p. 263. See also Part II, p. 216. 


CHAPTER VI thi 


of separation without divorce; since the husband would 
not treat his wife properly, she would be freed from her 
duty of living with him, yet he would be compelled to 
support her. We never hear of the Takkanah elsewhere, 
and it probably failed to gain the support of R. Perez’s col- 
leagues because the rarity of the offense made the revolu- 
tionary measure seem unnecessary. 


CHAPTER VII 


LATER GERMAN SYNODS 
GERMAN SYNODS IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY » 


R. Perez died before the close of the thirteenth century 
and was thus spared. the pain of seeing the expulsion of his 
comrades from the land in which they had built up the 
great academies. The blow fell in 1306, when the Jews 
of France were ordered by Philip the Fair to leave the 
country. Many of them wandered to Germany, where 
the Emperor demanded 30,000 marks for permitting them 
to settle in his domains. As the French Jews had been 
robbed of all their property by their former sovereign 
this money had to be raised by the German Jews. A 
synod was called at Mayence to raise the means of satis- 
fying the demand. 

Probably somewhat later than this synod was that 
which convened at the instance of R. Hayyim Or Zarua 
and which regulated the practice of answering questions 
regarding civil law by letter. 

Jewish tradition had always opposed the employment 
of counsellors in litigations. Every man was expected to 
act as his own lawyer. So much depends upon the claim 
which a person makes in a Jewish trial, that it is very 
important that no litigant shall receive expert advice in 
making a response. The influence of the environment, 
however, was constantly tending to bring about the 
introduction of a legal profession among Jews. Already 
in Talmudic timesa Rabbinic maxim warns the Rabbi not to 
help a litigant in arranging his claims. R. Hayyim and his 
colleagues ordained that no Rabbi was to give a decision 
in any case unless it is referred to him by both litigants. 
“If a man comes to the Rabbi and says to him, hear my 


* Bruell, Jahrbuecher 8.61. 


CHAPTER VII 73 


claims and decide on the basis of them, and if the Rabbi 
yields to his request to him, that Rabbi is no longer to 
act as a judge’’.t. We do not hear of this Takkanah else- 
where but we do hear of many rabbis who refuses to answer 
questions addressed to them by one of two litigants. R. 
Israel Isserlein objects to the practice;? R. Obadiah Sforno$ 
declares it to be a practice condemned to the ancients. 

For a century after R. Hayyim history is silent on 
synodal activity, yet that century was replete with im- 
portant events. Of these, the most outstanding was the 
Black Death which swept over Europe during the years 
1348-1351. Not only did the Jews suffer by the plague 
which carried off young and old, but frenzied by the fear 
of the pestilence, the Gentile population rose against the 
Jews accusing them of having brought on the epidemic. 
This belief was further encouraged by the myth, which 
gained circulation but which appears to have been with- 
out foundation, that the Jews suffered less from the Black 
Death than their Gentile neighbors. The outbreaks be- 
gan in Spain but soon spread throughout Western Europe. 
The Jews in Germany suffered, however, more than any 
other group. There were riots in Augsburg and Munich 
in November 1348, and thence the flames spread to the set 
of Bavaria and the Rhine country. The Jews of Speyer 
were the first of those of the Three Communities to suffer. 
But the number of their slain was small in comparison with .- 
the two thousand Jews of Strassburg who were killed in 
February 1349. It were but horrifying once more to 
tell the tale of the rapine and cruelty that was displayed 
in Germany during those terrible years. The Jewish 
communities, weakened by the plague, impoverished by 
the death of the debtors who owed them money, were 
all but destroyed by the hand of the maddened multitude, 
who found in Israel a scapegoat on which to wreak their 
anger. 


t Res. R. Moses Isserles 57. | 

* Isserlein Pesakim, 175, Comp. Res. R. Isaac b. Sheshet, 5. 

3 Res. R. Menahem Azariah 89; Comp. RFL 28; and Takkanot 
of Italy, part II, p. 301. 


74 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES | 


To such an extent were the communal activities paralyzed 
that no attempt was made to call a synod after the horrors 
were over. While the Crusades had meant severe losses 
for the Jewish communities they could still rally sufficient- 
ly to gather and take counsel; the suffering through which 
they passed in the fateful year, 1349, left them without 
even that strength. It was thirty years before the newer 
generation had sufficiently rested from the turmoil and 
troubles of the Black Death and its persecutions to 
call a synod to deal with some of its problems. 


SYNOD OF 1381. 


The synod was held at Mayence in the middle of the 
month of Ab, 5141 (July 1381). The most prominent 
of its members was R. Moses b. Yekutiel, the Rabbi of 
Mayence, who was the father of the even more prominent, 
R. Jacob Molin. Others who attended the council were R. 
Samuel Bonfant, an ancestor of the famous Salman of 
St. Goar;' and R. Abraham b. Gamaliel b. Pdahzur who is 
elsewhere mentioned as a colleague of R. Moses Molin. 

This council discussed the old problem of the Halizah’? 
We have seen how R. David of Muenzberg tried to cope 
with the abuses arising from this law. The ordinance 
enacted under his direction had now been in force for almost 
two hundred years, but apparently it was no longer ade- 
quate. At any rate it seems that brothers-in-law were no 
longer satisfied with the ancient arrangement and insisted on 
obtaining more than what was their due under the Takkanah 
of 1196. Yet the matter could not be left to the adjudi- 
cation of each local rabbi, as that resulted in disorder and 
unfairness. The synod therefore decided that all the prop- 
erty of the couple, both that given them by the family 
of the husband and that given them by the family of the 
wife, should be divided equally between the brothers- 

* The writer of Minhage Maharil whom Dr. Schechter so aptly 
called a Jewish Boswell. At the end of the Ms. of Mahari! in the 
library of the Jewish Theological Seminary R. Salman gives his own 


genealogy and Samuel Bonfant is mentioned among his ancestors. 
+ For text etc. see Part II, p. 252. 


CHAPTER VII 75 


in-law and the widow. Only property inherited after the 
marriage was exempted from this division. Such property 
as the husband had inherited from his family was to be 
given to his brother, and what the wife had inherited from 
her family, she was permitted to retain. 

The Council also undertook to define in terms of current 
money the value of the Ketubah. As is well known, the 
wife was granted by the marriage contract two hundred 
zuz if she was a virgin and a hundred guz if she was a widow. 
This obligation of the husband toward his wife is considered 
by some Rabbis to be even Biblical,t but is.at any rate 
held to be a very old custom. The debt is collectible on 
the death of the husband or in case of divorce. It is 
forfeited by faithlessness on the part of the wife and also 
in a few other cases. The wife may not, however, cancel 
or forego her rights in this respect. No husband may 
continue to live with a wife unless he is bound by -the 
Ketubah to pay her the sum specified from his estate. He 
may at the time of the marriage add to it, and then he 
becomes obligated for the ‘additional Ketubah’’. He 
may not detract. 

Just how much a mina (one hundred zuz) meant became 
a matter of serious importance as soon as the Jews began 
to wander over the face of the earth. Not only was the 
relative value of money different in different times and 
places, but it was difficult to ascertain the absolute weight 
of the silver in the mina of Talmudic days. There is no 
need to enter here into the endless calculations of the codi- 
fiers but we learn from our Takkanah that in Germany 
the sum had been fixed in terms of the currency of Cologne. 
This had been the most marketable in earlier times and 
had approached most nearly a standard coinage. By the 
time of the Council, the coinage of Cologne had ceased, 
however, to be so reliable. The florin now replaced it, and 
the value of the Ketubah had to be re-assessed. It was now 
placed at three hundred and six hundred florins for the 
widow and the virgin respectively. 

The Takkanah was accepted by most of the Rhine 

t Ketubot 10a. 


76 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN iets MIDDLE AGES 


cities but not by Cologne where apparently the old standards 
continued in force. Strangely enough, Maharil, who was 
the son of one of the members of the synod, fails to make 
any mention of the council in discussing the difference 
of custom between Cologne and the other cities. * 


Graetz’ reports several synods of this period. A council 
took place at Weissenfels in 1386 but we know nothing of 
the circumstances under which it gathered or of its decisions. 
It is reported that the delegates to the council took the 
precaution to obtain letters of protection from prominent 
nobles but that these helped them little in their.sufferings 
on the journey. 


We have somewhat more definite information about a 
synod held about the year 1400 at Erfurt.3 Among those 
present were R. Eichel, R. Lippman (perhaps he of Muehl- 
hausen),4 R. Nathan, R. Hezekiah, and R. Abraham 
Cohen. The only decision recorded is that forbidding the 
priests to pass through the gates of the city and the ceme- 
tery at funerals until the dead had been carried through 
those gates. 


SYNODS OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 


R. Jacob Weil, a disciple of Maharil, tells of another 
synod, this time held at Nuremberg, at which “‘many or- 
dinances were passed.’”’5 One of them was to the effect 
that “if one of the litigants wants to use German in plead- 
ing his case, the other must do likewise.’’ This ordinance 
is in the spirit of Talmudic law which requires that so far 
as possible the two litigants shall be placed in the same 
position before the judges. Moreover, since in Jewish 
court-actions, the discussion was almost oral, it was very 
important that the litigants should understand each other. 


* Compare Minhage Maharil, laws of Nissutn. 

2 Vol. 8-2, p. 426. 

4 Pesakim, 24. 

3 Famous as the author of the polemical work, Sefer Nizahon. 
5 Graetz Gesch. 8-2, p. 427ff. Res. R. Jacob Weil. 101. 


CHAPTER VII 77 


It would not be difficult for a litigant using Hebrew to 
disguise his claims from one who knew only German. 


Less important from our point of view, but of no less 
seriousness to the people of the age, was the decree of R. 
Lippman of Muehlhausen which must have been issued about 
this time, against using horns other than those of rams 
for the Shophar of Rosh Ha-Shanah.t This was not really 
the decision of a synod at all but was hailed as a Takkanah 
since it was the official decision of R. Lippman and his 
court at Erfurt. 


About the middle of the fifteenth century, German Jewry 
suddenly found itself torn into two parts by a violent 
conflict that broke out among the Rabbis as a result of 
the attempt of R. Seligmann Oppenheim of Bingen 
to set himself up as a superior Rabbi, if not a Chief Rabbi. 
He called a council of all the communities, but refused to 
give any statement of the agenda of the meeting. We do 
not know all the decisions taken at the meeting, but one 
of them made R. Seligmann the final arbiter in the inter- 
pretation of the Takkanot. This authorization was quite 
revolutionary and aroused the protests of R. Moses Mintz 
and R. Phoebus, as well as of other representatives of com- 
munities which -had been represented at the Bingen con- 
ferences. Appeal was made to R. Israel Isserlein of Neus- 
tadt, near Vienna, who decided against R. Seligmann. 
After a long discussion, R. Seligmann was forced to yield 
and this effort at centralizing German Jewry proved 
unsuccessful. s 


In 1475, occurred the wellknown Blood Accusation against 
the Jews as a result of the disappearance of the boy, Simon 
of Trent. The confessions extorted from the Jews under 
torture impressed the Gentiles, so that in the following 
year many Jews in Regensburg were seized in a blood- 
accusation. In order to counteract the activities of 

the citizens of Regensburg who sought to bribe the then 


* The Takkanah is found in oon) O27 pap printed in Husiatyn. 
2 Graetz 8-2, p. 428ff., Res. R. Moses Mintz, 63, and other 
references given by Graetz. 


78 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Emperor Frederick III to give them the right to try the 
accused Jews, large sums were needed. A council was 
held at Nuremberg which did not, however, dare of its own 
accord levy a tax on the Jews of Germany, and so appealed 
to R. Joseph Colon (Northern Italy)! to issue the demand 
for them. 


SYNODS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY 


It is clear that the holding of synods in Germany was 
becoming more and more perilous. A council held in 1493 
aroused the suspicions of the Gentiles against the Jews. ? 
We know nothing however of its decisions. The councils 
of the sixteenth century of which we have any records are 
very few. We hear of one in 1562, and another in 1582, 
at Frankfort-on-the-Main, but these were more concerned 
with the material than the spiritual welfare of the people. 3 
Their discussions no longer centered about Jewish law, 
but about Jewish disabilities and sufferings. As we read 
these dark pages in German Jewish history a feeling of 
futility comes over us, as when one witnesses the death 
pangs of agreat soul. It is difficult to feel in the activities 
of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, in the quarrels 
about R. Seligmann and the ordinances about priests 
and trumpets the spirit that had filled the synods of R. 
Gershom and R. Tam. The living Judaism of the first 
days of the revival was yielding before the ceaseles§ perse- 
cutions, the merciless tyranny of the evil days that had 
come. Just as the great codes of R. Eliezer b. Nathan, 
Rabiah, R. Isaac Or Zarua, and R. Mordecai b. Hillel were 
being replaced by the collections of customs of the type 
of R. Abraham Klausner’s Minhagim, the Minhage Mahartl, 
and the Leket Yosher, even so were the general Rabbinic 
discussions descending from theirl oftv level to matters 
of trivial importance. 


* Bruell, Jahrbuecher, 8.61. 
2 Bruell. zdzd. 
3 Monarsodlaetter, 1890, p. 155. 


CHAPTER VII 79 


SYNOD OF 1603 


Our! account of the German synods must close, how- 
ever, with an attempt to regain the old prestige by a council 
that was held in Frankfort in the year 1603. This synod is 
of particular importance as it led to a long trial of the Jews 
of Germany as having been guilty of high treason. In order 
to meet the accusations of the Jew-baiters, three German 
translations of the Takkanot of this synod were prepared. 
The accusations brought no untoward results, but while 
they were being discussed the Jews of Frankfort and indeed 
of all Germany lived through years of profound anxiety. 
Yet there is nothing in the Takkanot that can in any way 
be said to have justified the slightest suspicion against the 
Jews. There are provisions against appealing to the secular 
courts for redress; regulations concerning the just distribu- 
tion of communal taxes; exhortations to the spiritual heads 
of the communities to see to it that the Shohetim of their 
respective communities are duly qualified; ordinances 
against buying wine from Gentiles, forbidding inter- 
marriage with such Jews as are in the habit of buying 
wine from Gentiles, and deposing any Rabbi found guilty 
of such practice or permitting others to follow it; regu- 
lations regarding the ordination of Rabbis, forbidding the 
granting of authorization except by a committee of three 
heads of academies, or to a young man before he has been 
married for two years; refusing recognition to the appoint- 
ment of a person as Haber (scholar) by any authority out- 
side of Germany; denunciation of the practice of dealing in 
counterfeit coins and collecting debts by means of forged 
notes; an ordinance against receiving stolen property; a 
provision denouncing the practice of borrowing money or 
wares from Gentiles and failing to pay, and providing that 
one guilty of such practice is neither to be helped nor 
defended by his fellow-Jews against prosecution by the 
authorities; a prohibition against performing any marriage 


t Ibid. See also Horovitz, Die Frankfurter Rabbiner-versamlung, 
where the Hebrew text has been published. See also below Part II. 
aco i. 


80 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGBS 


ceremony for one who transgresses these ordinances or 
intermarrying with them; a prohibition against buying milk 
from Gentiles; a prohibition against wearing clothes like 
those of the Gentiles or against forbidden mixtures of linen 
and wool or exacting usury; a prohibition against printing 
any book without the permission of three recognized rabbis; 
and a further prohibition against buying books printed 
without permission; an ordinance that no Rabbi shall seek 
to extend his sphere of authority over people previously 
under the jurisdiction of a colleagues; a provision denying 
the power of any Rabbi outside of Germany to pronounce a 
herem over the German communities and declaring any herem 
pronounced by a foreign Rabbi void; a section exhorting 
every community to pay the share of the tax allotted to it 
by the conference, and forbidding any marriage with such 
as would refuse to accept the ordinance, and annulling such 
marriages if performed. 
These Takkanot strongly recall of the authority of 
the early German Rabbis. The boldness which character- 
izes some of the provisions, the attempt to deal with real 
abuses, the fearlessness with which such iniquities as the 
counterfeiting of coins and the forging of notes is de- 
nounced, the assumption of the authority to annul marriages 
contracted in violation of the ordinances, indeed, the very 
thought of using the power to forbid marriage with such 
as failed to obey the ordinances, were worthy of the most 
promising days of German Jewry. But it was the last 
flicker before extinction. The authority that had once been 
possessed by Jewish synods had passed away from them. 
Obedience which people refused to give willingly could 
hardly be extorted by any means. Unless the vast ma- 
jority of the Jews would accept the Takkanot, their very 
rigour was certain to make them only the more futile. 
The days when Jews would have agreed to marry only 
such as were observant of Rabbinic Takkanot were for- 
ever gone. Perhaps such an ordinance could never have 
been enforced. At any rate, it does not seem to have 
suceeded in unifying the Jewry of seventeenth century 
Germany. The decay that had begun with the Black 


CHAPTER VII 81 


Death, and the persecutions that accompanied it in the 
middle of the fourteenth century, had touched vital nerve 
centers of German Jewry and there was no longer either the 
early devotion to the Torah or the power of organization. 
Just as the reading of the annals of the growth of the Ger- 
man communities in the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth 
centuries fills one with hope and inspiration, even so a study 
of the decay that marked the progress of the later centuries 
fills one with gloom. The very revivals that took place 
under the guidance of Maharil in the West and Isserlein 
in Austria, were revivals which held in themselves seeds 
of progressive disintegration. The times required not 
merely a saint or ordinary scholar, they required a R. 
Gershom or a R. Tam, combining unequalled scholarship 
and a strong personality with practical foresight and power 
of organization. Such a physician did not arise and so the 
disease spread further and further. 

It is time that we turn to the developments that were 
taking place during these later centuries in southern Europe 
where Jewish communal life was beginning to show signs 
of life and power reminiscent of the early days of France 
and Germany. 


CHAPTER °Vill 


TAKKANOT OF CANDIA 


The persecutions of the Crusades and the resultant 
lowering of the social status of French and German Jewry 
coupled with the increased knowledge of the Orient that 
was brought to Europe through the returning knights, 
aroused in the thirteenth century a new interest in Palestine 
in the hearts of the Jews of Western Europe. As early as 
the beginning of the century R. Samson of Sens, accom- 
panied by about three hundred French and English rabbis, 
attempted the hazardous migration to the Holy Land. 
Some twenty years later we find a R. Baruch b. Isaac, 
probably the well-known author of the Sefer Ha-Terumah, 
on his way to the Land of Israel. After the middle of the 
century we hear of the migration of the two great polemists 
on behalf of the Jewish faith—R. Yehiel of Paris and R. 
Moses b. Nahman. In the year 1286, R. Meir b. Baruch 
set out for Palestine, but was captured on the way and 
imprisoned. 

While the journeys of but these few outstanding persons 
have been recorded in history we may be certain that a 
larger number of rabbis and laymen undertook the journey 
to the Orient. Many of them, however, did not attain their 
goal, but remained in the countries through which they 
passed. A number of others forced to flee from tyranny 
and persecution sought homes in the southern European 
lands. We thus find that beginning with the close of the 
thirteenth century and continuing through the fourteenth 
century, there is an influx into the southern European lands 
of scholars of German and French extraction. Thus R. 
Asher b. Yehiel became the rabbi of Toledo. Thus also 
there grew up in northern Italy the families of the Landaus, 
the Mintzes, the Katzenellenbogens, whose very names 
betray their German origin. 


CHAPTER VIII 83 


While there had been no important synods in Spain 
or Italy in the centuries in which they were attaining such 
importance in the Jewish life of France and Germany, 
it was clear that the arrival of the northern Rabbis would 
of itself stimulate the establishment on the new soil of the 
institution which proved so useful in their former homes. 
The earliest recorded synod which was inspired by one of 
these migratory rabbis was that held on the island of Crete 
a Bea he kes 


The Jewish population of this island was small, but their 
laxity in certain observances and particularly the loose 
morals of some of the younger elements of the community 
shocked the more or less Puritanical German scholars. 
In German cities there was hardly a Jew who did not attend 
daily service; here there were large numbers who did not 
come to the Sabbath service till they had refreshed them- 
selves by a ramble along the beach. The Jews of the 
German towns were knit together by centuries of traditions 
and by the common fear of persecution. They were almost 
like members of the same family. If a death occurred, it 
was a matter of concern for the whole community, and the 
. Talmudic precept that no work should be done during a 
funeral was rigidly carried out. How could one accustomed 
to such expression of mutual sympathy on the part of towns- 
people, regard members of a community who left a bereaved 
family to grieve by itself.t The German rigorists had 
surrounded the Sabbath with any number of restrictions. 
Not satisfied with the prohibition of work on _ that 
day, they had added severities of their own. It was in- 
conceivable that any member of a German community 
would continue to work on Friday till nightfall, exposing 
himself to the possibility of the violation of the Sabbath. 
Yet this was a common practice among the Jews of Crete. 
Finally there were numbers of cases of indiscretion on the 
part of betrothed couples, an evil which was almost un- 
known among the Jews of France and Germany not only 


* See Hoffmann Festschrift, p. 268, but compare Kaftor Va-Ferah 
Tho yske, 


84 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


because of their more rigorous adherence to Jewish cére- 
monial, but because of the frequency of child-marriages. 


It was R. Baruch b. Isaac, when he passed through Crete 
on his way to Palestine in 1238, who called the attention 
of the community to their waywardness and insisted on 
reform. With his aid a series of ten ordinances were drawn 
up and established. The main provisions were directed 
against the abuses already mentioned. But the German 
origin of these ordinances is betrayed in the re-establish- 
ment in this island of the Takkanah of R. Gershom against 
renting from a Gentile a house from which a former Jewish 
tenant had been unjustly evicted, Another ordinance 
prohibits defrauding Gentiles, a third forbids anyone to 
compel a fellow-Jew to attend the secular court on Friday. 


R. Baruch b. Isaac established these ordinances in a 
council attended by fifteen prominent Jews of Crete. Yet 
it was not to be expected that the mere passage of the 
Takkanot would give them permanence, so that we are per- 
haps justified in assuming that within a few years they fell 
into oblivion. It was a Cretan rabbi—R. Zedaka—a person 
otherwise unrecorded in the annals of Jewish life, who re- 
established these ordinances. He must have felt that this 
failure to acquire the authority due them was the result in 
part of their being written in the rhymed prose form that 
was so delightful to the French and German rabbis. Being 
acquainted with philosophy, he prefaced the more important 
ordinances with ethical discussions of their value. Thus 
in repeating the ordinance against working at the time of 
a funeral, he takes the opportunity of giving a discourse 
on immortality, and in connection with the ordinance 
urging the people to attend the service in the synagogue, 
he gives an exposition of the value and meaning of prayer. 
In discussing the relations of betrothed couples, reference 
is made to a case where pre-marital relations led to in- 
fanticide, and the prohibition established by R. Baruch 
against a betrothed man entering the house of his future 


t These Takkanot are reprinted in Part II, of this volume,p. 265 ff. 
from the text of Rosenberg, in Hoffmann Festschrift, p. 270 ff. 


CHAPTER VIII 85 


bride except in matters of the utmost importance and in 
the company of two other men is repeated. 

Our scant records of the development of the Cretan Jewish 
community give us no information of the further history 
of these ordinances or their effectiveness. Before turning 
to the discussion of the ordinances of the other southern 
European lands, it must be noted, however, that the same 
prominence which the suppression of illicit sex-relationships 
is given in these ordinances, is given it in those of Corfu, 
of Italy and of Spain. While the institutions of the synods 
was imported from Germany the conditions that these 
synods had to face in the new lands were quite different 
from those that prevailed in the more learned communities 
of Germany and France. 


GHAPTE RSLS 


TAKKANOT Obs ITALY 


In Italy, as, in Candia, the spirit of the Torah received 
new life from immigrants from Germany. It was the many 
German rabbis who settled in the northern part of the 
peninsula in the fourteenth and fifteenth century who re- 
kindled the light of Jewish learning in those communities. 
It was natural therefore that they should bring with them 
some of the outstanding institutions of the Jews of the 
Rhine country. Ina country whose religious life was more 
or less dominated for a century by scions of the foremost 
German-Jewish families, we would naturally look for synods 
and inter-communal Takkanot. And in truth while we 
hear of no attempt in earlier times at federating the Italian 
communities, the beginning of the fifteenth century did 
see such an endeavor carried out. 

It required the imminence of a serious danger to bring 
together representatives of various Italian communities 
in 1416. Those were the days of the rival popes, Benedict 
XV and Martin V. Benedict had in his anger against 
the Jews released a bull which was fraught with the most 
threatening danger to the Jewish people. Not only was 
the study of the Talmud forbidden and all Talmud copies 
ordered seized and destroyed, but Jews were forbidden 
to do business with Gentiles, and were compelled to at- 
tend church services thrice a year to hear their religion 
blasphemed. It was with the hope of being able to in- 
fluence the ultimately victorious pope to be more favorable 
to Israel that the communities of Rome, Padua, Ferrara, 
and Bologna as well as the districts of the Romagna and 
Tuscana, sent delegates to a councils held at Bologna. 
We do not have the complete minutes of the meeting or 
the resolutions decided upon. It is known, however, 
that a ‘‘ Vigilance Comittee’’ was appointed on which each 


CHAPTER IX 87 


community was represented by twomen. This Committee 
was to have the power to levy taxes, and to expend the 
funds raised in gifts as might become necessary for the 
common defense. Arrangments were made for an equitable 
distribution of the taxes, and a general treasurer was 
appointed. 

We know of these provisions only in so far as they are 
quoted in the decisions taken at the meeting of this Vigi- 
lance Committee in 1418.% By that time Pope Martin 
V had been definitely recognized by all as the head of the 
Church. It was therefore necessary for the Commission 
to meet and take action toward gaining his favor for the 
Jewish community. The meeting was held at. Forli, 
on May 25, 1418. A deputation was to be sent to the Pope 
as soon as possible, to ask for the restoration of the ancient 
privileges of the Jews and ‘“‘as is understood by all who 
think”’ a lavish gift was authorized in order to pave the 
way for this restoration. The Jews knew only too well 
that the heart of the Mediaeval men of power “hung on 
their purses’”’. Detailed arrangments were made for the 
collection of the tax, which was to be divided in two parts. 
One part was to be collected according to the wealth of 
the families. This tax was a ducat and a half per thousand 
ducats of property in the possession of the family. A 
further tax which was rather in the nature of a ‘poll tax, 
was assessed against each family. Each family possessing 
more than five hundred ducats was to pay a ducat and a 
half, a family possessing less than five hundred ducats and 
more than one hundred ducats was to pay a ducat if they 
could, but in any case not less than half a ducat. Recipients 
of charity were of course freed from the tax, but there were 
no other exemptions. The Communities were urged to use 
both the spiritual power of the herem and the physical force 
of the state in the collection of the taxes. 

The council did not, however, limit itself merely to 
fiscal arrangements for the Communities. It dealt with 
internal Jewish conditions as well. Strict rules were laid 
down regarding extravagant dressing and lavish banqueting. 

1 See Part II, p. 282 ff., and Graetz Festschruft p. 53 ff. 


Aad 


88 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Playing games of chance was forbidden, except, curiously 
enough, on fastdays. This exception is in striking con- 
trast to the German ordinance which permits playing 
only on festive days.t. The kind of clothing that might 
be worn was described in detail. The husbands were made 
responsible for the observance of this ordinance by their 
wives. If one’s wife wore too costly a dress, one was sub- 
ject toa fine. Failure to pay a fine made one liable to lose 
the privilege of being called to the Torah or being counted 
as a member of a minyan. 

Limitations were placed on the right to assemble. No 
more than six persons were permitted to gather in any 
place outside the synagogue except to discuss matters of 
religion. Even promenading about the streets was pro- 
hibited except on festival days. In general, any action 
that might arouse the notice, the envy or the anger of 
the Gentile population was deprecated. 

The self-abasement reflected in this document is hardly 
to be paralleled. While the protest against luxuries may 
have been justified and at least finds its outerpart in most 
of the writings of the period in all countries,? both among 
Jews and Gentiles, the fear of walking about the streets, 
the apprehension that Gentiles might suspect Jewish 
gatherings is almost without parallel. Nor was any at- 
tempt made at self-deception regarding the reasons for 
these prohibitions. They were made so as to avoid giving 
offense to non-Jews and that fact is distinctly stated. It 
is the low social position held by the Jews of Italy that is 
reflected in these ordinances, and the self-contempt that 
grew out of it made them necessary. 

While this influence of the Gentiles on the Jews was 
vicious: there was another influence even more vicious. 
In the Takkanot of Candia we heard of precautions taken 
against misconduct by engaged couples,3 but we have thus 
far not heard of any ordinances regarding vice. It appears, 
however, that that was a matter calling for serious considera- 

t See part II, p. 242. 


2 See Part II, p. 244, and p. 374. 
3 See Part II, p. 279. 


CHAPTER IX 89 


tion among the Italian Jews. Respect for woman had 
lamentably broken down and vigorous action seemed neces- 
sary to maintain the moral integrity of Jewish manhood and 
the purity of Jewish family life. The local officers of each 
- community were charged with the duty of making in- 
vestigations into this matter and to punish anyone guilty 
of wrongdoing. If the leaders of any community failed 
to take action, the leaders of the neighboring communities 
might interfere and discharge their duty. The officers 
of the Confederation pledged themselves to cooperate 
with the local officers in eradicating this evil. Obviously, 
among those guilty of the sin might be the more influential 
of the population, and the pledges and precautions taken 
against them were not too many. 

While the action taken regarding the internal life of 
the Jews was very important, that was not, of course, 
the main purpose of the commission. It had been created 
to gain the favor of the Pope for the Jews. Its success 
or its failure would be measured by the success or the failure 
of the deputation. 

There seems to have been no serious difficulty in raising 
the funds necessary for the work of the commission. The 
deputation was eminently successful in carrying out all 
that had been expected from it. On January 31, 1419: 
the Pope issued a bull,’ prohibiting attacks on Jewish syna- 
gogues, or interference with the observance of Jewish religious 
rites, or physical compulsion to accept baptism. A 
second bull followed in February, 1422,? admonishing the 
Dominican fathers against inciting mobs against the Jews. 
The Jews had every reason to congratulate themselves 
on their powerful friend. It is true that his friendship was 
not constant, but to the down-trodden Jew of the Middle 
Ages, it was a blessing to find a man whose friendship could 
be relied upon to any extent. 

In 1425 signs began to appear that the Jews had con- 
gratulated themselves too early. In one bull the Pope 
reminded the Jews that they were obliged to wear the 


t Stern, Stellung der Paepste, p. 25, no. 11. 
2 Ibid. p. 30, no. 21. 


90 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


badge. In another he gave the Bishop of Gerace full 
authority to deal as he might see fit with such Jews as 
failed to wear the badge or publicly accepted usury, or 
in general disobey the commands of the Church.' Finally 
in 1427, the Minorites complained to the Pope that the 
seizure of their chapel on Mount Zion by the Mohammedans 
had been instigated by the Jews. As the Venetian 
Jews had commercial connections with the Orient the Pope 
held that they were responsible for the infringement of 
the Christian rights there, and he compelled them to pay 
a fine because of the seizure of the chapel. 

This was certainly a pass where the Commission was 
bound to interfere. Accordingly a meeting was held at 
Florence in 1428. The term of the original Commissioners 
had expired in 1426, and it is not known whether they 
met without legal sanction or their terms had been extended. 
They held a synod which decided to send to all the com- 
munities a circular letter begging for help in the emergency. 
A copy of this letter has come down to us. It is written 
in a very guarded tone, but is piteous in its appeal. A 
particular appeal is made to the communities of Romagna 
and Lombardy. The matter must have been particularly 
urgent for they write, ‘‘we know definitely neither from 
conjecture nor by rumor, that unless we hasten to stand 
in the breach against those who seek to do us ill, there is 
no longer any hope for us.”’ 

The appeal seems to have met a ready response, for we 
soon hear that the Pope became much more favorable to 
the Jews. In 1429 he issued a bull condemning severely 
the action of the monks and others who incited Christians 
against Jews. He repeated his order against compulsory 
baptism, freed Jews from certain tax-burdens, and granted . 
them the right of free trade with Gentiles and the right of 
attending schools. 

Just as in 1418, so now the Commission did not content 
itself with merely raising funds and buying the favor of 
princes. It looked into the internal affairs of the Jewish 
Community and passed important resolutions regarding 

t Ibid. p. 37, no. 281 


CHAPTER IX 91 


them. Of these only one has come down to us, dealing 
with the matter of usury. We have seen that in view of 
the extreme stringency of the Jewish law against usury, 
forbidding the acceptance of any interest whatever, the 
Rabbis of the Middle Ages permitted the use of certain 
legal fictions in order to enable Jews to borrow money from 
their fellows. The Rabbis were, however, very anxious 
that no one should accept any interest from another Jew 
except by means of the properly established formula. 
It appears to have become customary in Italy for the 
creditor to compel the debtor to execute a note for a larger 
amount than what he had actually received, in this way 
making the interest part of the debt. The Takkanah 
declares that in any such case the debtor need pay only 
the amount actually loaned. Furthermore, the debtor 
who claimed that the amount set down in the note was 
larger than that which he received, might compel the 
creditor to state under oath whether he had lent the total 
amount, and had not included the interest as part of the debt. 
If the creditor refused to take the oath the debtor was 
freed from paying any more than the amount which he 
admitted having received. 

Another form of evasion of the law against usury was 
to use a Gentile as intermediary. Since the Jewish law 
of usury applied only to Jews, it was customary in Italy, 
as in Germany, for the creditor Jew nominally to lend the 
money to a Gentile and then have the Gentile lend the 
same money to the debtor Jew. In such cases it was usual 
for the debtor Jew to give pledges for his debt to the Gentile 
intermediary who promptly transferred them to the creditor. 
Ordinarily, this method secured the lender both his capital 
and interest without any difficulty. The ordinance pro- 
hibited such methods, and furthermore declared that if 
any one gave a pledge to another Jew with a Gentile as 
intermediary in the manner described, and if the pledge 
were worth more than three florins, that debtor would be 
compelled to pay the interest charges on his debt—not to 
the creditor, but rather to the Charity Fund of the Com- 
munity. Furthermore, he would be fined two ducats 


92 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


for each transgression, which fine too should be paid to 
the Charity Fund. 

Whether the Commission was able to influence Jewish 
internal life to any large extent is doubtful. However, their 
success in dealing with the Pope should have raised their 
prestige in the community. So important did the Jews con- 
sider the Bull of 1429 that many years later the Roman 
Jewish community had the bull printed at its own expense. 
It is possible that the confederation was continued for 
some years. The kindness of Eugene IV and his successor, 
Nicholas V, must have been obtained by lavish gifts from 
the communities, but we hear nothing of the manner in 
which the sums were raised and have no way of knowing 
whether they were raised through such a commission as 
worked between 1416 and 1429 or otherwise. As so often 
in Jewish history, we catch a glimpse of a most interesting 
phenomenon which only arouses our curiosity to know more 
about it, but the sources fail us. It is probable that the 
Commission decreased in importance even if it continued 
in existence, and when we look about at the time of the next 
Takkanah, the old Commission and the Confederation 
which it governed have passed into history. 

THE SYNOD OF 1554 

For more than a century we hear of no Italian synods. 
But the number of immigrant Jews from Germany con- 
tinued to increase and if they did not form a majority of 
the Jewish population by the middle of the sixteenth 
century, they at least set the cultural tone of the com- 
munities. 

The conditions of the Jews in Italy had become markedly 
worse. While the Popes of the period were not unfriendly 
to the Jews, the feeling of the people generally had grown 
more hostile. The printing of Hebrew books had begun, 
and the Inquisition was already busily engaged in assign- 
ing them to the fire. These facts are reflected in the 
decisions of the Synod at Ferrarat. The Synod took 
place on June 21, 1554. 


« Printed originally in *>38 ay, 1879, reprinted in pamphlet form. 
See Part II; p. 301. 


CHAPTER IX 93 


The Takkanot provided that no book was to be published 
except with the sanction of three rabbis and the heads of 
the community in which it was printed. If the city where 
it was printed had no such committee, the heads of the 
neighboring community were to have the authority of 
permitting or refusing to permit the publication of the 
volume. The names of the Rabbis sanctioning the book 
and of the Community-elders who gave permission for 
its publication were to be printed at the beginning of the 
book. Otherwise, the sale or buying of the book would 
be prohibited under a fine of twenty-five scuti. A second 
provision was that if one of the litigants in a case had taken 
the matter before the Gentile authorities, he could not 
bring it back before the Jewish courts without the con- 
sent of the other litigant. This Takkanah is very lenient 
when one considers the seriousness with which the Jews 
of other countries looked upon the matter of taking Jewish 
litigations before Gentile courts. It seems that Jews could 
not prohibit appeal to Gentile courts in Italy, and so re- 
sorted to this rather mild refusal to consider any case that 
had been taken to the secular courts unless both par- 
ties asked them to interfere. Another important pro- 
vision of the Takkanot was the one forbidding any Rabbi 
to give a decision in civil cases unless he was requested to 
do so by both parties. This Takkanah was intended to 
prevent a Rabbi from suggesting to one of the litigants 
under the veil of a decision what he ought to claim. A si- 
milar Takkanah had been established by R. Hayyim Or 
Zarua,’ according to the testimony of R. Moses Isserles. 
This section is the only one which is quoted in any of the 
responsa collections. 

The fifth section deals with the rights which a Jewish 
tenant gained over the house in which he lived.. It will 
be recalled that one of the most important of the Takkanot 
attributed to R. Gershom is that forbidding any Jew 
from renting a house from a Gentile if a previous Jewish 
tenant had been dispossessed unjustly. The ordinance 
of these Italian communities remarks that some authorities 

t Above, p. 73. 


94 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


limited the operation of that Takkanah to cases where 
the house was still in the hands of the offending Gentile » 
landlord, and were inclined to permit the renting of the 
house if it had been sold. The ordinance therefore expressly 
prohibited the renting of the house in any case. It thus 
established, at least so far as Jewish law is concerned, the 
principle that a Jewish tenant acquired rights in the 
house of the Gentile in which he lived. These rights 
were not merely personal rights against the landlord, 
for in that case they would cease to exist when the house 
was sold, but objective, in the house itself, and therefore 
continued even after the sale of the house. 


The sixth section deals with another Takkanah of R. 
Gershom. Inthe discussion of the ordinance against bigamy 
it has been pointed out, that various opinions were ex- 
pressed by the scholars of different countries and different 
ages in regard to the right of the husband to marry a second 
time if his first wife had no children. It was generally 
felt that R. Gershom could not have intended to interfere 
with Biblical and Talmudic law, and that therefore if there 
was no issue of the marriage, the Takkanah did not apply. 
Still the question remained whether the birth. of a single 
child could prevent the husband from remarrying or at 
least two children were necessary. For the Mzshna declares 
that it is commendable to be the father of both a son and 
a daughter. The Takkanah does not permit a second 
marriage in the case of the father who has only a single 
child. 


These two sections show how far the German influence had 
developed over the Italian communities. The two or- 
dinances just described deal with Takkanot originally 
promulgated for Germany and France alone. While 
it is true that the Takkanah against renting a house 
from which a Jew had been dispossessed applied with 
special importance to Italian conditions with the Ghettoes, 
yet the remarks about the Takkanah against bigamy 
show that it was not merely the conditions of the time 
that brought about the acceptance of these German Tak- 


CHAPTER IX 95 


kanot but the influx of German Jews and German scholars 
into the country. 

The last section of the ordinances provided that no 
Kiddushin was to be performed except in the presence 
of ten persons. The consent of the parents, or in the 
case of their death, of the two nearest relatives, is also 
required. The performance of Kziddushin in violation of 
the law as laid down would automatically result in the ex- 
communication of both the husband and the witnesses. 
No provision is made here for the nullification of the Kid- 
dushin contracted under the forbidden circumstances de- 
scribed. It is likely that the violent protest of R. Joseph 
Colon, the famous Italian rabbi, against the action of R. 
Moses Capsali, of Constantinople, in declaring void Kzd- 
dushin performed in violation of a similar ordinance made 
the Italian communities beware of the nullification of 
marriages. 

Halberstam in his edition of the Takkanot has identified 
some of those who signed them. The most prominent of 
them by far were R. Meir Katzenellenbogen of Padua, 
and Isaac Abravanel, grandson of the still more famous 
Don Isaac Abravanel, who was amongst the Jews expelled 
from Spain in 1492. It is interesting to find the scion of 
the renowned Spanish family writings which are of German 
decent in endeavoring to create a strong Jewish community 
in their new home. 


CHART Baty eX 


TAKKANOT OF CORFU 


That the Takkanot here described were not the only ones 
enacted can be seen from the fact that very often the merest 
chance brings to light new ordinances in the most unlooked 
for places. In a manuscript Mahzor of Corfu in the library 
of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Professor Marx 
found some Takkanot which on examination appeared to 
be Takkanot made in 1642 in the island of Corfu. They 
are the more interesting as they give us some information 
about a community of whose internal life little is otherwise 
known. The Corfiote Jews who had held positions of 
importance in their communities in the fourteenth and 
fifteenth centuries gradually lost their social standing. 
As Corfu came under the domination of Venice, the Jews 
sank to the low position held by their Italian brethren at 
the time. It is said that at the time of these ordinances, 
there were no more than five hundred Jewish families on 
the island and that the population was diminishing. 

As seen from the text before us’ there were at the time 
two congregations on the island, the Italian Congregation, 
with whom were mixed such Spanish immigrants as had 
found their way to Corfu, and the Greek congregation, 
which is referred to in our text as “‘the other”’ congregation. 
The Italian Congregation who established these ordinances 
invited the Greek Congregation to join them in drawing 
them up, but the latter declined to take any part in the 
work. Thereupon the Italian congregation appears to have 
appealed to the Venetian governor to enforce these 
Takkanot. : 

We do not know whether or not the consent of the 
governor to these Takkanot was gained. The pages on 
which the text has come down to us, flyleaves of the Mah- 
zor, are not well preserved so that many of the lines are 

t See Part II, p. 316. 


CHAPTER X 97 


incomplete. This makes it difficult for us to be certain 
of the things about which we are most anxious to know. 


Of the signatories to the Takkanot none are known 
otherwise, but the families of several are well-known. The 
Pipi family, two of whom took part in the synod, is 
known because one, Abraham Pipi, was among the seven 
Jews admitted to the bar at Corfu in 1698. The Di Mordo 
family which is represented here by Elijah di Mordo 
had several rabbis among those of Corfu, and several 
other noted members in more modern times. 


Most of the provisions deal with the matter of marriage. 
Just as in the Takkanot of Candia so in these complaint is 
made that engaged couples are often guilty of misconduct. 
The betrothed are therefore forbidden to be together in 
private except during the month preceding the wedding. 
The custom of dividing the marriage ceremony into two 
parts, each performed at different times, was abolished, 
except for cases of emergency, and in such ceses the marriage 
ceremony would have to be completed within a month. The 
curse of the Jewish Middle Ages, namely, the man who gave 
a girl something of value in the presence of witnesses and 
thereafter claimed her as his wife, was done away with 
by a simple expedient. All such marriages were declared 
void. The synod declared that it had the right of an 
authoritative Jewish Beth Din to annul such a marriage, 
and moreover, fined the bride, the bridegroom and the 
witnesses one hundred ducats each. An interesting or- 
dinance is the one providing that the consent of the girl 
to the betrothal is necessary whenever she is more than 
thirteen years of age. That is a year beyond the age of 
majority for females as fixed in the Talmud.' But as 
engagements are not legally recognized in the Talmud 
at all, and have force only as communal arrangements, 
the synod doubtless felt free to set the age according to 
the needs of the time. Weddings on Friday were to 

* Compare Harkavy, Teshubot Ha-Geonim, p. 87, from which it 


appears that there was a difference of opinion among the Geonim 
in regard to the matter. 


98 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


take place in the forenoon so as to avoid violation of the 
Sabbath. 

An ordinance regarding woman ’s dress follows which is 
however incomplete because of several lacunae. Just as 
in the Italian Takkanot,' the burden of seeing that this 
Takkanah is observed is placed on the husbands and fathers 
of the women. 

Three following Takkanot deal with matters relating 
to death. They provide that everyone who is on his 
deathbed shall repeat the confession of sins, that no one 
shall cut his flesh in mourning for the dead, and that on 
the Sabbath or Festivals no woman should act as a pro- 
fessional mourner at a funeral of a Jew or a Gentile. 

There is also an ordinance protecting orphans against 
neglect on the part of their surviving parent. If a man 
dies his wife is to obtain only the minimum Ketubah, and 
the property which she brought to her husband from her 
father’s house. If the wife dies the husband is to inherit 
but one third of her property, the rest being given to the 
children. 

A regulation about wine-selling follows. This ordinance 
is not altogether clear since we do not know much about 
the methods of sale. Moreover, it seems to represent 
rather a pious’ urging than a Takkanah that could be 
enforced. 

While these Takkanot seem to throw an unhealthy 
emphasis on sex matters showing that moral conditions in 
the community were unsatisfactory, yet they reveal to us 
the Corfiote Community in a new light, struggling to main- 
tain its Jewish life, and in common with the other Jewish 
communities, working to maintain the Torah. in Israel, 


t See below, p. 293. 


COA RE Rex T. 


SYNODS OF THE SPANISH JEWS 


While both Spanish and Franco-German Jewry developed 
as the Gaonate decayed, the Jews of the Peninsula remained 
in closer touch with Babylonian Jewry than did their northern 
brethren. There have been preserved more responsa of 
R. Sherira and R. Hai addressed to Spain than to any other 
European country. We may take the proportion of those 
which have endured through the ages as an index of the 
proportion of those which were written. It is no mere 
accident that the Seder R. Amram was composed at the 
request of a Spanish community. Indeed, the Spanish 
liturgy belongs to the Babylonian rather than to the 
Palestinian group, while the Italian and the Franco-German 
rituals are in many respects akin to the Palestinian family. 
The reason for this is obvious. Spain like Babylonia was a 
Mohammedan country. The language, the culture, the 
habits of the people, were very much the same on the banks 
of the Ebro as they were on the banks of the Tigris. Even 
after the Caliphate was divided, there was still much akin 
between the two parts of the Mohammedan Empire. This 
relationship could not but be reflected in the closer contact 
‘of the Jewish communities of the Mohammedan world. 
The Jews in the jands of Christendom who were living 
under completely different conditions, could not possibly 
keep in close touch with the Geonim, and tended to develop 
an autonomy that was unknown in the South. We have 
found traces of the influence of the Babylonian Geonim 
on the Jews of Germany and France, but by the end of the 
tenth century they were practically out of touch with each 
other. 

These differences in language and in culture, the need of 
crossing several national boundaries in order to arrive 
in Babylon and the difficulty of receiving messengers 


100 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


from the seat of the Gaonate, led to the rise in France 
and Germany of a type of scholar distinctly different from 
that which developed in Spanish soil. Alfasi, Ibn Migas, 
Maimonides, R. Meir Abulafia, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Gebirol and 
Judah Ha-Levi, to mention various Spanish scholars al- 
most at random, were not very different from the Baby- 
lonian scholars who preceded them. Alfasi had his proto- 
type in the author of Halakot Gedolot, Maimonides was a 
spiritual descendant of R. Saadya Gaon, R. Meir Abulafia 
had much in common with R. Sherira and R. Hai while 
Ibn Gebirol and Judah Ha-Levi, of whom we think pri- 
marily as poets, doubtless considered themselves first and 
foremost philosophers, having thus much less in common 
with Jannai and Kalir than with the Babylonian poets. 
These were quite different conditions from those north 
of the Pyrenees. Babylonia had no one who could be 
compared to Rashi or R. Tam. A book like the Sefer 
Hasidim would have been as dismal a failure at Pumbedita 
in the tenth or eleventh century as it would have been in 
Spain as a competitor to the Hobat Ha-Lebabot of Bahya. 
Where we understand the wide difference between Spanish 
and German Jewry, especially in their relations to the 
Geonim there will be no difficulty in seeing why the op- 
pressed Jews along the Rhine, who produced no Samuel 
Ibn Nagdela and no Hasdai Ibn Shaprut, were still able to 
perfect a strong inter-communal organization, while their 
brethren in the South, with all their statesmanship and 
secular power which was so often combined with Jewish 
learning, effected little for the organization of the Jewish 
Communities. Other factors, too, must have entered into 
the matter. For instance, the very fact that Jews held 
such high offices in their respective kingdoms must have 
made it difficult for them to seek to gather in council with 
Jews outside of their kingdom, lest they be accused of lack 
of patriotism. The fact too, that during the larger part of 
the rise of Spanish Judaism there were constant wars be- 
tween the Christians and the Mohammedans may have 
made union impossible. 

Whatever the cause, the fact remains that while R. 


CHAPTER XI 101 


Gershom, and after him R. Tam and others, were making 
strenuous efforts to build up a well-organized French and 
German Jewry, nothing was being done in any similar 
direction in Spain. During the thirteenth century, 
however, it became customary for Spanish Jews seeking 
Jewish scholarship to go to the Tosafistic schools in France 
to complete their education. Moreover, there was some 
influx of Jews from the North into Spain as a result of 
the repeated expulsions from France, and of the unceasing 
persecutions in Germany. Spaniards like Ibn Adret and 
Germans like Asheri, must alike have brought to the 
south news of the Rabbinic gatherings at Troyes and at 
Speyer, Worms and Mayence. As the idea spread, all 
that was needed to bring about a council was some im- 
portant occasion. Such an occasion did arise when the 
Black Death was followed in Spain as elsewhere by nu- 
merous onslaughts against the Jews. It was evident that 
nothing but united action could prevent further disaster 
to the Jewish people, and so the various communities 
living under the rule of the King of Aragon, sent represen- 
tatives to a council, which seems to have been held at 
Barcelona, to confer and take action in regard to the crisis. 


1. THE SYNOD OF 1354 


This council which met in 1354, appointed a Commission 
which was to be in power for the ensuing five years and 
which was to attempt to gain certain privileges from the 
Pope. The communities were also organized in a perma- 
nent association for their mutual protection. But in order 
that the agreement might become valid, it required the 
sanction of the King. Indeed, it seems to have been 
illegal to pass any resolutions unless they were made de- 
pendent for their ratification by the King. To induce him 
to ratify the agreement and also to help them by interced- 
ing for them with the Pope, in order to persuade him 
to grant them certain rights which are enumerated, the 
Commissioners were’ empowered to tax the people in order 
to raise a gift for the King’s treasury. 

The Council also established decrees regarding the 


102 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES — 


internal life of the Jews. But since these were in a separate 
document they have been lost. They probably dealt with 
Jewish luxuries of dress and food like the similar ordinances 
in Italy, in Castile and in Morocco.! 

We have no further information in regard to the activities 
of the Commission. It is possible that the Communities 
of Catalonia refused to join the others even in the face of 
the imminent danger threatening them and that the plan 
failed for lack of unity. What ever may have been the 
outcome of the work of the synod, our sources again fail 
us, and nothing further can be said. 

But dark days were now in store for the Spanish Jews. 
Their enemies were active and powerful, and their activity 
and power were increasing. As the wars to expel the 
Mohammedans from the country continued and became 
more and more successful, it was inevitable that religious 
fervor and hate should spread through the land. More- 
over, those who had taken Jewish lives and looted Jewish 
homes after the Black Plague were only too likely to de- 
mand new offerings. It was, however, almost forty years 
before the incitements against the Jews culminated in 
the terrible riots of 1391. There is no need of recounting 
here the horrors of that year, which marks the beginning 
of the end of Jewish life in Spain. The number of Jewish 
slain reached thousands, and those forcibly converted were 
at least as many. Not only were the Jews of Valencia, 
Catalonia and Aragon attacked, the flame spread to the 
island of Majorca. The year 1391 meant to the Spanish 
Jews what the First Crusade had meant to the Jews of 
Germany. They were henceforth definitely a hated and 
persecuted people. 


2. TAKKANOT OF CASTILE 


The first serious attempt to organize the Jewish communi- 
ties of Castile did not take place till almost a century had 
passed after the Aragonian council. In 1432, under the 

* These Takkanot were originally published in the He-Haluz I,1. 


by Schorr. They have been reprinted with translation and notes in 
Part II, of this volume, p. 326 ff. 


CHAPTER XI 103 


influence of a particularly able court-Rabbi, R. Abraham 
Benvenisti,’ representatives of the communities of Castile 
gathered at the capital, Valladolid, for a conference which 
was to frame a constitution for the conduct of the Jews of 
that land. The document that was drawn up by the con- 
ference still exists, and it is far more detailed and compli- 
cated than any thus far discussed. Its very detail serves to 
throw light on the life on the Jews of Spain in that period 
to an extent that could be obtained from no other source. 

It is divided into five chapters, which deal respectively 
with: a. Schools and Synagogues; b. Courts, their pro- 
cedure and their power, the election of judges and other 
officials; c. Defamations, forced marriages and attempts 
to intimidate judges or other officials of the community 
through the power of the Gentiles, the sale of wine, and 
attempts to seize Jewish offices through non-Jewish inter- 
ference; d. Taxes and community meetings; e. Luxurious 
festivities and lavish clothing. It might seem that the last 
section is given too prominent a place, and that the details 
of men’s and women’s clothing which are there discussed 
are hardly relevant to a fundamental code such as our 
document was intended to be. But when we remember 
the importance that was placed on the matter of restraint 
in clothing in the Italian Takkanot? and what an important 
part it played in all Mediaeval ordinances, it will no longer 
surprise us that the Castilian Jews considered the regula- 
tion of clothing a matter of prime importance.’ 

It does not seem that these Takkanot were ever put into 
effect. Perhaps the government was averse to them, 
or it may be that the communities whose plenipotentiaries 
had agreed on them, refused to accept them. In any case, 
we do not hear anything more of these ordinances. The 
Castilian communities remained independent and separate 


* See J.E. III, 38b. 

2 See p. 243 note 3. 

3 The text of these ordinances has been published by Fernandez y 
Gonzalez in Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia and reprinted 
therefrom in book form in 1886. An English abstract of the provisions 
of these ordinances is given in Part II of this volume, p. 348 ff. 


104 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGBS 


until in 1492 they were united in their common ruin. The 
expulsion from Spain wiped out all distinctions that there 
might have existed among them; thereafter they were all 
alike homeless exiles, and when they had been scattered to 
the four ends of the earth, they felt more akin to one another 
than when they had been close together in the land which 
had been theirs for half a milennium. ~ 


APPENDIX 


The following sources are referred to in this part of the 
volume and while they are not complete texts, it was 
thought best to make them easily accessible to the reader. 
They are therefore reprinted here. 

Text A. is the quotation in Mordecat, Gittin, 455, from 
the Takkanah of R. Tam, against bringing complaint 
against the validity of a Get. The text given in Mordecai 
has been compared with that quoted in the Halberstam 
Ms., now in the library of Jews College, London, cat. 
Hirschfeld, 130, fol. 57b. The variants from the Ms. have 
been placed in parantheses and marked ¥. 

Text B. is the quotation in a responsum of R. Moses 
Taku (printed in Res. R. Hayyim Or Zarua, 179 and Res. 
R. Meir b. Baruch, ed. Rabinowitz 114) of the Takkanah 
of R. Tam against going bail for another Jew. For a 
further discussion of this curious enactment see above page. 
The text below is that published in the Responsa of R. 
Meir, the variants from HOS are marked N. 

Text C. is a quotation of the responsum of Rashi (Mueller, 
Teshubot Hakme Zarfat, 11b) dealing with the herem of 
R. Gershom against insulting Jews who returned to the 
fold after having been forced to leave it through the 
severe persecutions. 

Text D. is a quotation from the responsa of several 
German Rabbis, which are printed in the Responsa of 
R. Hayyim Or Zarua 222. It deals with the right of a 
community to tax its members. 


‘Tex peHAy 


nin ody $2) wy reobn mw wan oDom n™ onan 4D 

[2 ow snp xdbw mon mina mon abs. wer pw dw wena 
x Tow by pa yay xd om inrni ans yi ow by nypy Sxiw 
oat aNw Sy ow wr by ww ontyn Sy aynyo onem 42 wa jn 7A 


106 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


mova) mn own xnowa) TI) 7bxa wornm win mos bo by 
bon woo yre> ('n owa WoANM .) owl wiInm (AT Yo 
GI DD. T00WI 6x) TON TY °D Mm noowa InNDwD 
rend ones ots a 8h) Sen S25 nmd snows mpd casa 
nym> omra cynmd ons a iby 4s mom ond yD Toy Ty 
nanan ar aat by o> pen bod 8d 4s yord yor ws ims oy poy and 
mnpaws yay aapo xd 2ax pond oyow oxnpm o> Sew map © 
pian on any onyom ono? odey owh) man Saend yo poy 
oned ap nwa mat awpr> ase yyod awd od wy ann odd and 
wey Som ayn pasa ww $a irs) wad wiyr ams om open 
opds 15> op) ums) OD wD DD’ OND Ip>n ONAN DD wd 

~Nd 202 apy) so mbwm nosn by pny yom jyod sim orn 


aad ere=h te tir peht Gath mF icd avin eta eee Saw qd bs wbdwn on 

Oaym poben nnn mawra onwa oy anynm saws mds wn mem 
yyy xdow anynon by winarnn Sy may 7’n on ots Ow yIpwD 
paved onan 2y qx 4 Sy t'a seid xbw wn moa ja b> Syn 
panyd sby ain. ined oaxm podbwo nnn ¢.'n xow .m xb 


(Emx TGs 


yaar omy mbnd ww ona wm omnes pois anbsxwa oninann 

OYA IND ON .D VT YD MN TATW AI Ww uM OF? TNT PTT PRV 
ITT PD) Mos ANY TIN 7A AYwY yn AI NINA OYpiIMn OMA 
snoop xbw oon on snow pws ypo xsi ononan adsn mona 
nvn ows ~ppom ma aamm omni xd) oxy mawn dyad ar 
a8 mam pnd amos Sym pr o> praa wea mbp nmd wd ps aan 
sa xd) IDA Joy wna OFS ann ATM onw wa —Pednz ona7 ms 
snow pwoa wa ary yn ox yo) ody and pr wa nnd ppd 
Wa [wavs ase ody sanz ab ps ammo anyon ma cond 
a 951 PN yap win mon ory Txmw mDIa> wp) pty or own 
Ty TT) DY NID AMT AID yA yPodn “Pen OND) NDwRX N17) 
ONNNI (PD NIP) wPDy OX WX WN &? 4D Yy wIANA -ypA 
eyo mori ow xb mawn Yya an ox Aap andA on 
D’2 "y) mas -wyo Dry Tox NS on 12 7? Os ONeRIW 
Py Now por Sow ODTIT NN ON ANID DARL cesses Can 
pos NNDY Is Ody IT MD “YoY ann na aYew ma Opimoen 
Yn Noy pons praa mbna mbdop xdbw mob pxa nx pod us 


APPENDIX 107 


ppodna pry pox ams yam dy apysa ayn anxd ny wpm 
bo wom Saa°5 -wes ow) PT] ON PMY MNT AS Pons pompon 
ean chr 71D SIND OO 


1b. av BR 


NBEIIWIDN OFS TAI TD Srp NN APM JAW... esseseececceeeseees 

qo ond qn awe po ond n> or oxw Sapn iyy jaNn mam IMs 
bapd ix xd ond ynxw poo o> pew yaws Dx ond onan) Tat 
bap) xb on mnp mp2 xd1 ymd 4S w poo 4D1 4D os FS onynaw 
oN Pa aod bw ADD wyn 1D pom Sw powa °> am Jnynaw 


pivnbp mam vara ywupm arydn.............7l2v07 mp> pon stays 
FDY 2 CDT own 2 
SPDT PINT NTT DIN OY pom wh AN. esses mawn 


0p ya simw ons by tat panw> ar (a5 poy appz 7’3 
NDT w'D) PWS Non pos] yp|T> add ons a7’ on Don..... 
bapmw wan os aT Finn......a5 paw mo nnd ots oayna oanw 
3's) ons Sw xd.15 sanyo bw ox 9 nnd ons ow dy nn xd 
(a 'm ppmwaa yeast amid prw mo nnd jaws ons arm nod 
wy Tax mipn sinw rata nn jnep by word ym om pre 
mwyd oan by painw nao yp xbw son w’p......aag7 ovp> opa 
saxn by ann pan ps (a"y ‘Dp 2") WONT NT 1a paw a nnd 
Maxi an pda? os 87 youn ma yd maxm an o dia 7D on Nos 
xd sem 5" ma noyd phio> paw wiyon Sy ides pam ma cioyd 
nixw Ty) NO NDT D> poo wind Say ots PD pon Nin oD 
PONT S72) [BINT ON ONT)... onana oad dy>> ors oN) oN 
m2> dia Sapa mipn po mynaw Sapd xdow mpn wy Sapm sin 
seen ONPY BIND wN|TY > Tas No ow Say onipnd jaw oN 
bey Vaya CTD a aw opwndp 7’'a TTT 
TOM VYTT PDW TID DN... OUST YT ODN II Dw aN 
bap mipna wy mwyw ap naw tr ides nat $52 abap ymmd 
sana p7p mbit bers ‘DAT Pr PDND...... 72 Sxvow> 173 MND 
ym 13D yn ast non Mad now man qwhw C's “Sy 3"71 yD) 
es oody bap xdwa on rrp ops ody rbapwa ox porp us aD 
pr (> as 7027 SDT Tod ww OwD ONDA pop Us 7D NON TDD 
WISN ONY AMD PR) COTA PryY Py WIR Ty "D)........01 
p752 195s) DoD Nos Pym nw 't wy xd o's JT tod Do Kw 
ww mwvyd Sapa ows pew rata nn Pyn op ons oxw Sn on 
xO os) aNa8 TweD oon abn moon bapa an ox orn and 


108 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


bap xb b> aot mnad ody ors Dwean 4s wm Sapaz an wropn 
WD yom WwD07 az oN bas ~wbenvn Dd soa °> AD mbna 
mato ww DS wid NINA... onn> Sys omdy anna adn 
yond) oxan arp pyr da pret Ca‘ 2"D) INT NAT OAS Yow 
NyoI7 Onin by Tay aw) ony NIM TP imsN2 Od1D os oT onx’p by 
sw xd appr t’a appm mwyd ods 85 nyt aba Sax nay oan ant 
[ws oxo S'prxt Cron S's ody porn pm a TIN TD NOT 
Ssnw Senw Sy oben om oman cman onw ox onan °na5 oy 
tom Sey sa ards (owt n"D) 

sna 8323 7D wey der n'a bw awn appa KXxD JIA wan 
oD msi D’xs jnep by yond wy 22 PR PRT pp 


esac db 1H 


TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS. 





CHAPTER I. 
TAKKANOT OF R. GERSHOM. 


The codified Takkanot of R. Gershom are less well-known 
than those regarding plural marriage and compul!sory 
divorce but are of no less importance. While the texts 
of the ordinances regarding marriage and divorce have 
been lost, the texts of the ordinances regarding civil law 
have been: preserved -in several versions. None of these 
is in its original form, but nevertheless by a comparison 
of the readings of the various texts we are able to form a 
clear notion of what the ordinances of R. Gershom were. 

In establishing the texts of the Takkanot of R. Gershom 
(TRG), I have had the use of seventeen versions. Of these 
three are very late texts in which the Takkanot of R. Tam 
have been interwoven with those of R.Gershom. They 
are therefore discussed separately in chapter V, (below, 
p. 205). The remaining fourteen have been used as a 
basis for establishing the text that follows. 


The versions used for the establishment of the text are: 


Hebrew English 


Source : 
‘ Notation Notation 


Quotation of TRG in the Takkanot of 

Rhine Communities (See RMP 1022 

Secmpeow. cuapter.. VL) sine seesne aut eh Nae. de? S 
Munich Talmud Ms. (Strack’s 

photographic edition, also 

printed in Taussig’s Meleket 

Beg Ole Lite 1S) te meri ees Mae acs RE hi: M 
Mahzor Vitry (p: 798) <0 20. ccc es. pet ied aa V 
Br. Mus. Ms. Add. 11639 (Marg. 1056)..... Shy aye C 


112 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Merz bacherpyisin los: ssc c'cinth av iees he arene eee Nb ered ce E 
Kobez Debarim Nehmadim (compared with 
Maharil Ms. in library of the 


Jewish Theological Seminary).......... NT age JA 
Bodleian Ms. Mich. 582 (Neubauer 666)....3%...... JB 
Koh Boy SeGOure 0-2. 0 en ee ge ae Ne NL Soe ae Sahat K 
RMP 153, (printed also in RMP 1022)..... Thi cpeaepees P 
Bodleian Ms. Opp. 225, (Neubauer 970)....8)...... PB 
Br. Mus. Ms. 1389 (See MGWJ 1893, p.171)..m...... Ae 
Appendix to the Bomberg edition of 

Likkute Ha-Pardes Venice 1519,end..... ha Fae Os L 
Halberstam Ms. now in Montefiore 

Libra, Gate Hirshtéld a0 Sr a ese ie Tlie pews H 
Another Halberstam Ms. now in Montefiore 

Library,.(cats Hirshield, 1461560 eee eee PF 


In all of these texts except S, there occurs after section 
1, a paragraph regulating the method of suspending the 
herem against plural marriage and the release of betrothed 
couples. This paragraph mentions R. Gershom by name 
in most of the texts, and where his name is omitted, it 
is evident that the scribe emended the text, because it 
seemed strange to have R. Gershom mentioned in the 
third person in a text which was ascribed to himself. In 
view of the fact, however, that the paragraph is lacking 
in S, which we shall presently see is one of the oldest of 
our sources, and in view of the fact that unlike the other 
sections of TRG it is not a statement of an ordinance at 
all, but a regulation of the procedure to be followed in the 
suspension of an ordinance, we may well assume that it, 
was not part of the original text of TRG. Hence it has 
been omitted from the text as printed below, and is dis- 
cussed separately in Chapter II. 

In all the texts, except S, there is also added at the end 
a statement of the law that one must not leave a synagogue 
in which there is only a precise quorum for religious ser- 
vices. In one of the texts discussed in Chapter IT (AA, Heb. 
S88) this provision is attached to the regulation concerning 
the suspension of the ordinance against plural marriage. 


CHAPTER I 113 


Again we follow S in not considering this section part of 
the original TRG. Nevertheless this section. has been 
printed below, since it is most conveniently discussed in 
connection with the remainder of the texts before us. 

By omitting these two sections, TRG is reduced to a 
code of ten sections, nine of which deal with fundamental 
rights of communities and individuals in their relation to 
each other. The exception is paragraph 6, which pro- 
vides that no book or other article entrusted to the care 
of one person by another shall be retained by the bailee 
because of any claim against the owner. This is purely 
a rule of civillaw and can hardly be classified as one of the 
important basic rules such as the provision concerning 
the right of summons (section 1) or the right of the communi- 
ty to collect the taxes before suit can be brought for review 
of the assesment (section 7). Moreover this is the only 
section that mentions any authority. The authority 
mentioned is R. Tam, who was born more than half a 
century after the death of R. Gershom. This difficulty 
was felt by the writer of V who omits R. Tam’s name 
although he includes the section. But the omission of 
the name can be regarded only as an unsuccessful emenda- 
tion, since the context requires the mention of some au- 
thority. We must therefore assume that the whole of 
section 6 is a later interpolation. 

Section 7 too appears to have been inserted at a later 
time. Although it deals with a rule that naturally would 
be included in such a code as this, it seems that R. Meir 
b. Baruch did not have that section in his text. For he 
refers to the rule laid down in it, providing for the payment 
of the tax by the assessed person before bringing suit 
for the revision of his assessment, as a ‘“‘custom of the an- 
cients’? (RMP 708). It cannot be doubted that if this 
section had been found in R. Meir’s text of TRG he would 
have quoted it, or referred to it as the ordinance of R. 
Gershom, just as he quotes section 5 in a similar connection 
(RMB p. 209). 

Since we have definite proof that sections 6 and 7 are 
later interpolations, doubt may well be cast on the genuine- 


114 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


ness of the ascription of all but the first five sections. On the 
other hand there can be no doubt of the authorship of part 
of TRG by R. Gershom,since section 3 is quoted as a Tak- 
kanah of R. Gershom by so early an authority as R. Aaron 
of Lunel (thirteenth century) in his Orhot Hayyim, Part 
I, Laws of the Synagogue, § 26. Similarly, as has been 
stated, section 5 is quoted by R. Meir b. Baruch. 

To the theory that the original TRG contained only five 
sections, the objection may be raised that in the Takkanot 
of the Rhine Communities, dated 1220, TRG is given in 
ten sections (S). But as will be seen in the discussion of 
those ordinances (p. 225), there is good reason to believe 
that TRG was inserted into the text by a synod that met 
long after 1220. It seems that during the first half of the 
thirteenth century there were a number—at least three— 
recensions of TRG current in German communities. The 
original version in five sections was the one used by R. 
Meir b. Baruch. Another, strongly influenced by the 
enlarged French versions had ten sections, and also included 
the regulations concerning the release of the herem against 
plural marriage (C). A third (S) contained ten sections 
but was still without the regulations concerning the suspen- 
sion of the herem against plural marriage. That the text 
of R. Meir was not S, can be seen by a comparison of the 
text of his quotation with the corresponding section (5) of 
S. It is much more akin to C. 

It has been noted above that S differs from all’ the 
other texts of the Takkanot in omitting the regulations 
about the suspension of the ordinance against plural 
marriage and the final paragraphs about leaving the 
synagogue when there is only a precise quorum for con- 
ducting services. Sections 7 and 9 are given there in a 
reading that differs quite widely from that of the other 
texts. It is evident that S was not used by the writers 
of the other texts, nor was it influenced by them, except 
that since it is descended from a common source with them 
the actual provisions of the Takkanot are the same. 

It is difficult to determine whether S or M represents a 
version more nearly akin to the original. While M has 


CHAPTER I 115 


introduced the regulations concerning the suspension of 
the ordinance against plural marriage, and also the para- 
graph about leaving the synagogue when the quorum for 
services will thus be destroyed, in several cases it has pre- 
served older readings than S. Thus in section 2, it will 
be seen that S agrees with all the texts in having two para- 
graphs while M has only one (See the notes to that section). 
Again in section 5, it will be proven in the notes the reading 
of M is older than that of any other text. 


M and S are thus both outgrowths of an older text. 
V is akin to M, but while both M and V claim to come from 
the pen of R. Moses of Berne it is probable that V made use 
also of some other source. 

V is the ancestor or is akin to the ancestor of most of 
the other texts that have been preserved. These fall 
into three families. The first class consists of two meme 
bers—C and E. C has been strongly influenced by some 
German texts. Like S it mentions the Seder Kedushah and 
refers to the interruption of the reading of the Torah, in 
section 2, but on the other hand it contains the sections 
omitted by. S, and does not follow the readings of that text 
in sections 7 and 9. It is noteworthy that the writer living 
in Germany where Zarfat generally meant not the province 
of Isle de France, but the country of France, substitutes 
Poitiers for the Zarfat of the French texts. (below p. 139). 

C and E are alike, however, in that they read in paragraph 
5, MIPN ARV IS Wyn MIpn pwiyw vy 12; in the regula- 
tions concerning the suspension of the herem against plural 
marriage they in the regulations concerning the suspension 
of the herem (See chapter IT) they read 75>) nn instead of 
mwsN1 ws of the other texts; in paragraph 3, they read ON 
bxwm whereas the S, V, and K read ?’8wD 078 ON}, while M 
read }xwon; in paragraph 6 they read in common with S 
appl ps whereas K and V read p52 ps on; in paragraph 
8, they read 09597 wis while K and V read 0° 527 ’wis ON) 
and S and M have onan 712. It is this seen that 
E and C have much in common as opposed to other groups 
of the earlier texts. 

The second group of texts are those included in the class 


116 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


J-JA and JB. In establishing the text of JA use has been 
made not only of the Kobez Debarim Nehmadim, but of the 
Ms. of Maharil which is closely akin to it. JB is a little 
more diffuse than JA “but is not essentially different. 
The readings of these texts are characteristic and are so 
different from those of the other texts as to place them un- 
mistakably in the same group. For instance the words 
nans yo are inserted in the first line. In the paragraph 
dealing with the Yom Kippur candles, there is an additional 
provision exempting the candles brought by women. 
There is a quotation from R. Isaac of Falaise (?) regarding 
the custom of stealing in sport on Purim. 

The third group consists of K and of a series of texts 
that seem to be based on a text very much akin to K. 
This group is characterized by many variations only a 
few of which can be noted here. 


In paragraph 1, they insert (anna) apna ydy abn 

and pam poaw ay pnomd pas ps 
Vy ‘ (ene nee ANSELE Moxy mn 1 
% i Soir evewedd ipsrond pyr 2a pois 


Besides K there belong to this group, P, PB, PC, PF, H 
and L. K is more akin to the earlier texts than the others 
since they all have variants like the following: 

They insert D197 Mal pny in paragraph 2. 

They insert 13 5banndb xa xbw in paragraph 4. 

L represents an older text than P, PC, PF, or H. Like 
K and the other earlier texts it reads in the first paragraph 
yoy miaqd pam pre xdx instead of ainad pbia> paw; in the 
regulation concerning the suspension of the herem against 
plural marriage it reads in common with most of the older 
texts m>np wow» max wbwn while the later versions of this 
group omit mbap wbwn. 

It is not probable that K is the source of the others 
since it has a number of variants which are not reproduced 
in them. Mention should also be made of the fact that 
in PC the sections are numbered and that its writer seems 
to have had available material not in the original of the 
other texts, since he inserts the rule about the candles 





CHAPTER I ; 117 


of women for Yom Kippur which otherwise is found only 
in JA and JB. PB also adds large sections not found in 
the other texts. , 

Besides these complete texts, individual sections are 
quoted in several collections of responsa. Section 1 is 
quoted by R. Moses Mintz (Res. 83), but as it is obvious 
that his source is S, his quotation is of little help in estab- 
lishing the text. This section is also quoted in a German 
responsum of uncertain authorship, dated 1569 (printed in 
Ozar Tob, 1883, p. 5), from a source akin to the K—P 
group. Section 3 in quoted by R. Aaron of Lunel in Orhot 
Hayyim, 1, Laws of the Synagogue, 26. His text seems to 
be quoted from memory, so that aside from being obviously 
based on one of the earliest texts, akin to M, V, C and S, 
it cannot be determined to which of these groups his text 
belonged, or whether it did not represent a group otherwise 
no longer known. The quotation of section 5 in RMB p. 
209, is definitely from a text akin to C, and that in Res. 
R. Joseph Colon 17, from a text of the K group. 

In printing the text below, it has seemed best to use 
M as the basic text, but where S was very different that 
text is printed in a parallel column. The changes in the 
M text where those occur in brackets are from V. M as 
are not found in V and are believed to be additions are 
marked by parantheses. The important variants have 
been placed in footnotes. The variants from the quotation 
of R. Meir b. Baruch are marked n (English T), those from 
the quotation of R. Joseph Colon are marked w (English 
Q); those from R. Aaron Ha-Kohen of Lunel 1 (English 
AK) and those from R. Moses Mintz ¥ (English MM); those 
from the responsum in Ozar Tab, 9 (English O). 

It may help clarify the relation of the various texts to 
- one another, to indicate it in the following diagram. 


118 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


TAKKANOT OF R. GERSHOM 
xX 


| | 


x x x 
By a 
i (2) i T (n) S (x) 
ee (1) 
Co ate G 
Se A Ee 


L(a) xX 


QO) ¢P-On)* “BBN Oe 7PE I) PH yi be 


TEXT 
worm ow 5) FAT OTs say on 27'2 (ov) Onn 12 ww imp» 41 
pina yoy mon pwa "DS 6paw> omy cpa son p"y pad 4ans 


ppp >>.) wy orpo S23 .m .2) 72 OTN ww op 5D .71)..N) 7 [7°3... DID 1 
Opp won Ly ww 

.V7202N Ly 13D .3r NT 2 

INN VyYdD WN DY Dy ON .NP DY... NIN 3 

IMS RD). PTD orm ANN 83d Ty 2 td irom MN DIN NA2).7 4 
ans OF8 729 worm .n pad wom yan 830 p> wom «37.7 

oy s'y > y 8 [oon »'y 5 

72 NIM) (73) 13. PT 3a 1a .y N.S war NP) 7) 3) 7 7 
ANS VyD porwr DN) .ar..’> omy "wa .N) T"3 °wA OMY WI «mM [ApPAD! 


—— ss 


CHAPTER I 119 


pwd xox camp as got sorty xdb3 bas) 29’23 pywn NIw ITY 
ayat> yan 4d somiyy ans otya xbs 4nvanp pam> pry xds 
pt pop > mbwd yams mind yainn dyn 


S ra 
pa> ivan pom sotNwo pa> ivan pow oINwD .2 


nbn Suay dia psx anon rwam = axy Suad di>> ws (anDD vam) 
myap os am n>en ww oxy opys ‘robvaw ay mmo ndvpam 
iondban oyD ‘2 bvaw ay sana Jb25 Svan 3D ANN) ANINNA 
bua 112"N8 TWIP TID IN May 
won ptib wyw ay adanm b> 
b> pS i2,ya nypi ona cn 
3yannw normals ox dD buad 
mben 3) bvawa Sbannd ow xa 

4inwa Svad dia ns 


pyod pa7ad gad spas por .ar.m pyvd tao Raw Pa oy aT Ny 

.PWA INS MDNR .T 2 

eta ornn yoy abn .onnn yoy adn oa mot) ar on ok) smapnn yby mbdn un 3 

wxr.poy ainod odia> oraw om ody ainad poior pro xox on 8) (pamis...kon 4 
map yan 12 pry xox 

SSP ot) 297 72 92 19979 nod yan ayy ON sm .a7 Ny 7-119979...999 5 
was ox 19975 yan > 45° om .95> yan ax on .2; 

7 on pam pow say pnomd pay pry om 41 a) 8) 6 

mbowdy sind wm nd sawd) on .nodwa ony wt b...rans 7 


Porm) NDT Maa pwd . «Tm .T) 2 wT ND 8 
dry ohiety, DN’ INS .AP NT 1 TTT) 0 WN) WT) TD 8 


.0).mdpn ornys 2 Sua ty .3).8).oDIs7 onyD 12 Sua o"s NON. .odDn on. 10 

moon Svaw ay .m .opys 9 md_n Svaw ay oon .mban onyp wow Sua xd on 

sayy bom Sva5 pron xn Sia ie opin onyD 2 Suaws) arr MIDIS OY, 1) 
nea Aw WD 7 .AM) 


ama ™y varasr.mbpna $5 Suad Soo> gy yan .> tpt... "N] 1 
by omxd wy ayn ow Sava v2) Inawa xd ndan dua xbdv onotp on wo) Nt 
-bva> oxwn adnnsd ps Sapm mpn Sawa on mbpn 11 129 Sua Nd ox ran 


maa x2 aan Suad dy>> pry. ww ws 237 INN PNT TD 7 280.7 2 13 
nyo na $55 Suab So>> mein mbpn ‘43 Sua ox Sax ov Nin wR NOMA 


yan .t).ov SSpnp yan .) .ow yan ims .n .t.555np yan .n.3 13 
.ov yon non maa war st oa $>pno yan . .m 212 


bo2 .n svya aden nyo ona bop wk) nyo ona $5> wn .odraa wart. yo1> 02 14 
“vyya pry nyo ona $53 .m .yyaw nyo na [953 .) $50.0.) . Py nyo ona 


120 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Wx on InXd (oxo CaoDy 2915 wm 2eoa7d n'a 1S>Nwor .3 
e)105 sayton xd ox 4roy moowwd 3d1>> 

Sapa mond) (aden Sead) 77a mwin mas 15 TaNw °D .4 
ow 10intaxo yoy Sow orn Sapam b> obapw ry spy send 
[JX DIN [DIN 83) ‘ord MTT? a Das pRiinayeay 4b? 727 
onipm) ons2 nawna isdma appa xxoi ja) 14pq> 4 i3xnas 

uno wand Sia ws van Sy ppp myvid ww on onwd 16mn 
L9PN) MONT IV 1som~ey yanim ono Sapa b> by ornnnd o> das 
zioqna yawad dia pppp > arneim onat arp> 20u sanyo doa wrx 
Chma Sy wrx nism xba 


mo xen on) ot a xen wr oa wD DTN OND OP NT NDT 
omwia Sxw DIN ON) wn 

DTPI2,.D ip? SNS 

ONO IPR OP NT TT TD RD TI 8 

ons immed .2 8) wnt md arnt ad .p cots med on. .a.07N ins by ww 4 
em ov SSom xdw ots aimed on mot tad em omed on aa Soannd xo xdw 
£3. 

xd os ok) arpa Sapa $2 mms pw o’ss .p odd now ND ON TLR 5 
(ID "D2 MIN¥DIT NINN npn enpnynw anor mwad yy avd oan bod me ow 
ov oan $55 ime tow 8d ox on ot) ar a SSannd oan $55 now xd on on 
oa $$ nnd oxan $55 now ma ims Tox xd ox om .oSpnad 

TN ADA pA yD) .ar NT 6 

JT2 ND ww.) 7 

jina aed on. 8 

DD OdIDy JY .n .onNa ob1D IID! TY war NT MT). 2) ND ToT 9 
Onn 

.OT NT DD 37D! oN 2937 Ow 2a) TANT 1D ObD 7 nO «M2... 10 
“TYY 727 N83 

ory ad yy td sow oa py owen yas anxd yoy noi 

pm Ins pry. mid Sy>> ots per .nr .'9 7 .yainn mind wa aosy mntd ox 12 
DIN PR) ar er yan aod diay par om .tod yainm doa? psn ott p10" anpd diay 
aaa mnt di 

sora pik xdi pd wy TIN os 13 

6735 55 pow ow FN. 7) wa 81 7725 wy qds8 oN JON .7 14 

nmypn 1D °5173 WDA HYD wT) N¥DI 1D). .at NP. 57a Wo NYO) AN. 15 
NTP P37 OT RYN) 137.8) NNT mapna * ra ‘7 DOA N¥D) JD) oT) NIT NN? 
ODN PRI ONT I Tyo 37 ova °NMANS 

872) 32 pI NRO) NNT AoW 16 

now nyiaw .X 17 

ean asyd Si» fot ow=nr'e bes NW PN) NI 18 

Nar Bie |p SOR PRI NI 19 

"5 v1 20 

.OND DANS .N) 21 


CHAPTER I 121 


S 
20y2y MIPN PyT 2a wry 1ON) 
oxanD 32007) MINN npn oS 
NaN PS Onno 370 7273 
sta aad) mpnm buadb Kw 
Try awd 7’2 pr od tad nopy 
ym aw msi 9B> sqdin ban > 


al 
oy mipn dapm wy on .5 
PS a7 wm MANS mupN IN 
9’25 spar tidy dvad ia my nn 
mix p> b9m -D 3999 sawenn? 
IW DNTP wm p> py vaw 
ayy ys °D> 


DWI TP AW jd 10°D 


ow Sawa iznazy? appi> n> ps ran dxx opp 117 pENT «6 
b> 1679 150'N WAT pow 14mn27p orn mr don) 13pSy 12 ww ryan 


JIN 2 PHY ON.ND priyy Vy wn on. 

pn ANZ OMIT mpm on ."> NITNN.....O%Y wat NP. pM ANY IN wn 7 2 

.OP NP .9293 OxIND OMAN yO VYyT I aN. oxane pimp arm 7 3 
1373 DIN OWA yO aM .n .osaND OMA 3M 

DMT YO OM. Tw a1 Nt 4 

mind 05 oa) pst tt.) .ar 8) 2’ad oopy Naa. pao saan tad was ot 5 
xox joan oy mpna oid mnotd pois pro on ta p"y yD ean mpna vis xbw 
> pias NdY Tad Kad yo os indi mpnm bvad di» ons per pei om 72 b"y 
3 7’3 _"y 8D DAPI Mpna 11» Xow mnqd) .ar "a B"y oN 

T'3 PRD 037.9273 3? Pas 81.7" aw prea qo by a’ awind 7 6 
21272 ae> 3a pre sm 42 dy sa aeind pr vd on .aw? 

SAIN eZ 

OPA aNteIAia). Meo LEN Dei les 

“Py nw 3 D> .m 9 

TYY JUS IPN NONI NDI «NT YY JMS DIAN ONDIP wp «M1. 10 
9D (ot ayy qos °B> ws potpT amo wD at ayy JUS (DD IN NT DNTP wm 
yw qos p> os onotpm an 

asy> appid ps (pyr oT) ON NP TD) ND Ts [oazy>...ppppm) 
ptppion onpo aDy> app:> psx o2 arm .pns ostppwit wk} Sx opp opp 
JOSS 

Jo mde ow oar 12 

oxvon Sy ww pppon by war spppom by uxt ym) ot) on wa) ND TT 13 

snotp orn & mr bon wt .onotp Sw orn & ar Sop 2. kn nynDTp ON 7D N14 
w onanow mbx Sop wm 2) a) .'2 ayn nnd '»y ww .onotp onn w ar 9a by un 
5 .ot St .onoIp mipnd on 

15 3 apy wan WN 15 

pw asy xbw 7 .asyd xdbw myrtpp 52 .ar.xr.a mmtpp $2 aay> xbw.n .n.s 16 
0d wy om matpen $5 Sy sen ner by wa ty rtpp ow asyd xdy am on pp 
ow Sawa wot er pppon by 1d ww ayan ow Sawa sm ot on a) .o22y> pry 
myran 


122 


JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


aya aob sinew spon sapy> 2>> mpun anbow nds mitpen 


& 

pa} pon “anw Sapm ombu 

Ooms ww on ”y pa Lox >"y 
rw 09195 dy>> ps oon durw 
wo oMyo yrEw sty ad wy 
mwyw 0 pom dia> ms mnown 
yIDw onp BX ww PTD Xow > 
pap xbw id ewyw yrya nN ON 


Poody war kt. nm on ox} taba pr 


77N& 6737 OW 5x 


al 

own mann poy yum 8 .7 

rman pom dy>> 1198 Loma 
qNDwd IX My) 13y7bw Ty Tad 
pa> isyom> Si 1593 an 
n> 1> w isynpw onp inde» 
2onwyw ay qa xba pdy iopiyxd 
b> 22np D"5s7 215npA mint Dd 


eat ONT OFT 2D) wT) 0 02D) TT Ow ON 


sto>D7 pr .7) .mpun 
0519) wt NT on.) oe 2 


MvIwa war wt ony Sawa .n 3 


wor Aywd imvaDw Dawa 1 mM on 4 
“NvD NTT ost Rw bax ot) .otx $25 Worn my-an aNwa Sax.» .2 5 
ots S52 NIT In ont Nw Sax om .ome b> 


sins xd) 1 6 
wor TWDywD 37 


OS $7 OTN) «7 ON) LW Ot ONT 21) LIT) /T) 22) 02) NDT Oo 8 
ooo maid ws3) om) ./4w Na) ar LNT 9 
My TNT PPD TY VY oO 1.) JT) 0) 03) ON) WT IN TPH " FT YT .T 2 10 


l 


Swi IN PPS 


8 or kr .3 1 ps. ..t1.ar gr pomd xbdy od ps ot .pomdb pr au 


por) sod px .n yam n> 


Svyor an voto 7’25 sana on mato ta Syn war xr .n).a) kd) 7 2 12 
| 1'a5 manor Sven ww nan by Sonn wm .ma20n ON 


oy bum AD ww Nom om aN) 
IN MYO IN .W .MNIwo3 YA Myds yA Tw .3) .MnDwNa IN My... 


1 13 
1 14 
MNIVIIA 


PRR YI! MND TNT) IND OP ST) NDT TD 15 

(Awyy .an Awyw 9 pormd ar sr .paa xdw 1d mwyw ow ct’ad wy pomd on 7.216 
27). 091 TD .N) pa Nbw ad Aww Pd 1 AD b> pomd wn tpt Rbw 
mes) on) p> xbw 1d meye ino bop om 

amino yaw om oy > yap oper on 395 7 17 

xdw > awy Svomwy O78 ANN ON wo) pt> xdby 1d mew md ON nT 2 18 
paz xdy any odovere om) Sven aN Os | 1) waxy mnpm yD AMw>) pT 
19 Pwyw ANT ON wa? Nt AOSy mINDA yD ANY 7328. Moxy mnDm yO Tw 


pap xbw 


nya) abn bvad wy ay my yn .ar at Sarpy pys nvmd ot Sap nvad a 19 
voy Sapo vbpn Svad war wer pdy Sarp 


ATNWD) PT ww TM .T) WN 231 20 


Vyrvawory we .orstmory om Sapa ory car xr oy a) on a 21 
doen mp? Sia ww anand wwe $55 otx np .m .dyn np: un 22 


CHAPTER I 123 


S 


wyw ty dapdi piyxd ra nw 
yy mee anyy jpn pt 
781 7377 W909 Np’ D"oxw Sapa 
anp> pon d-awa 
pmo oxNay oD 70 
sp bw omnmo iwr abmpsa 


a 


e>avay ox ion ’y 1d 7wE 
p> 3x7 manor 


mbnp> so wan so p7 422.8 
pupy 7m) pad) Dd ova 


ial od Add onl ot ONE sprrio wavs 


ww OWY ON) IT] ON w wD 
LOTNN) 'DID7 923 PY INNA NIN 
pra podannw oipoa ovya 
~yn ismmNa 14yoby 13’pI97 Maa 1pamw om 1155) .9 
Isyiap 1739%9 17> w ON OoMIpNd) 16D 


ona mp ib saws born > ony war at SpA tay ’y wn 1 

: Aahwht beh ae ie EF 

non Sawa ximy vat xt .np> ow sm oD mmy on ynnp> .1 3 

ODD wR SD. LADD WIN NT. O77 WIN OND DTD.) NI. 4 

por ond pr aw wor opya po ond pre ai 8) 75 

yd mbmp opad paar anos Sap opps paar .t adap oma ona na 
poo mbnpm opod pray .ar xt aa S$pnnd mbnp opps oa) .m .onpon ova 
| MOPI NT O03 

pprotoy ws pupy mye bw mam ymre) ex ppy onm 7 
spy 9) ‘on maa pdt) .m 2) wx papy mm wk) .o mp7 ors 
ww pPNpy ny perry) .ar Nt. .wrys 

NDIDT INNA ANA PY 7 nD Maa omimd pay .n 7 now mad um. 8 
ow ap >amw noisn maa mr ans x"D nwy xd os NX) .oDDA ova ppdot paw 
poy PX ON T22 PY Amon ark ap daw "33 Ns PP INN 12 SX Avy? ON «Mm 
STAN NOR 

Danaea er it Pei’). <1 177 Ny 9 73...) OP NPT, 9 
| [ow wry .91) irpamd 

A) .irpya a) pms row nm) $$pnow opna fvya wa pot angm un .7 22 10 
oipaa poand wy gw oanym om .bSemw orpod proanb wy awd dior wm 
yy .b5annd Saw opr cup da .an pda wy ge owm var kr ow Sdpnow 
JW oPMs...0wy ON) .n [1 apo nnd 

on spyon b> 1) 11 

SIM) OTNY 2 Td WN) TN 22 

cow Sdpnw x 13 

09 .n a Ny) ND) Ts 14 

1 ANNA DPA AMINA WN 15 

{5 pmypnd) .2 OD (aT NT 77 SPY wIs WWD D2 .DIPOT WIN IMI _ N16 

sYIDP PMID YIP A LF PIO ETM DN 17 


7 
adv O3"N ONIN YANY WS VW ON ND 17) ON 7 18 


124 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


& ra 

yap pao ov wy oppo boa [ONDA TY 2758 1DID2WD1) .10 
oD myo ind ayn ov myn oN 4D DDI Ny JIT somaya 
WIND WN OYIN ON TAN MW MNP DAN w yap pw ow wv 
moms wan xb on ym ams ovayd zpbnd comp myn snnd 
any xo ox oon yo oma on ons 1S oyam oN sTyn mms 
an xo 908) YT AMS wIRD 
JOINT 19 Twp Wd 


LInssd oNYI OTD INN PS LOOXDIS PP NIT WI. wy ON 14 
16eap isdnn7 14on) inden ary 13ty Sspnnd max mw 125nnnwo 
NI729 Mw I" AND 205"y 19]°29 NOI AN TY 1877392 177VTTP IN 


!2) ‘so pin mxnout $52 n’> 1 

oud soon. 2 

aayn b> a3 

pao ovd w ox ODI NY Jn yap pw ma ww ya ot (Oo D...777 4 
DIPOD .nyIap pw OW KY TM MN yap pI Ow w& OX TD) N) NDT yap 
io by oipnd 

im> Somw nop odo ond adr ond pried an pred on am sn nas 
oboe jay pond ome myo yrned onotp orn & Aner 

Jb ow 6 

epym ord pond a omayd pond 7 

obxw os ym yo ons wan’ ox 4 Spy wisn ans 1d pyan’ on 218 
“Vym ‘ava ans oyame taba) on spyn a0 tnx 

var sr oon poy adn xd oyain ib ps on) 7 ond Wwe Dyan N17 OND. 9 
wo mpoin mund iy 

ans Snnm sm SSannd Sonnn yn wer bbpnad pina Sonnm on wn a) 7 2 10 
bSannd py Snnm wwe bd nnd 

nsx) prom Svad oy pron bvabdi noi map pin qo*> nso bvad on en 
buad sm 

1S Sbonndb.Snnmwo 88 (or NP) a) WN) TT oT 2 12 

ms pint orpw sy Sean ory ty wy anden ny pina nore ty a) 13 
oonson ee JS ndenty wor okt a sore cay Senn on indpn 

SN NY) IBY OND ST) NS) OD IMS By OND LT) RS) TY ONT NT TT 14 
NY?ON) .D TSwpp Nay Is Po px os 19989 8 8¥y OD INN Tay ON ar om 
wmwn xd onD InN 

Sonna exw pe op) 39 tox am on Sennay ane °> op) Fn ‘DIN 15 
sep yn wp yn bon ore op) VR 

1273 8 WIP VT 16 

yyw yosy ov pre S’ys pros nna anso sn ennne anno .ar 217 

Sonny yy> pw xba pn nor 7 18 

MI NED) 12) 1 MPT MD77A NX} 13) NN 19 

!Oo mxnouw 4 NPIAD Awd '7:-I3aNT | NINdD -npnyn YR IY a 2 


1 


CHAPTER I 125 


odin Sy sy JN¥PO WX? ION NT NNDDINT IW OIA WDD oN) 
(0D WS TY) WD ANY) IW NW 


1 65ya xd on su nawa mbpn Suad spew 3nd 2Nxn .12 
samo mynns> As Sapa mpn bawar zmbpn 


“8 TDI 


son> dw sayin mp pesin -pyod cp> nes: ‘nm pita 
mow wwyd ses jody owoqya wand sbe on cpa inp xdo an 
dy Topm ‘mi ‘opm 1d ps ox mand oN pa 


2.2 MDT 


yan mwa xbw ma ows xd. 22 pyo InN pow 'N) "DA 
sos man tna a> sdbw cand ran an ox ny owd 37 Aw jor 
sop xbw owl iran mpno w my arp bs apind mwEwy mw anNd 
FIDD Tyonn Nd) ‘Nw TTT 7 NNON LIN WIAA Tyo TAT OW OFN 
ma np xd) 12 ad. ona pms bs mayn wan xd ann 
J7van ns ws mp xdw ona Saws a ow ww ota bobo 


A MDDWT 


sobp pn onowp onn w aro 3S" 1 pyo tow sa) pt 
1 Tobw ADD Nprn invow Sawa 1a todbw apo asyds Soy mpun 


ear b>) ‘A vany) tow ainsn ody pro xba yim pany prsym ibs bor wt 
b>» ‘nm vanyr $453 sin adwon nay ww pas psy on 19959 85 Nx” OTD INN Tay oN 
Downy anND “ipy mvp ANY 1D ‘oR indsn ovo x" yn bw onn dy rayi 
FID TY TED YN) 19 TON MINMDN Aw PID Nba jinn Nor mw oY nA 
& pyon 

Son »pyom $5 war kt ON TY) aN THY) 2 2 

JYnoIp mpn wom .-nowp on wo.) Tw dN) IND 3 

ONWT DIN PR NN NOW TM on aw) 4 

pay mayan tow 3 Sava sm wy and yain oxy myano .7 at ows 15 
avan Sy ofxd wy nyan tow om Sava an am on avand om 

® by mn .onyp 1199 onp mdb5nm bua D’NN NN 139 JT oT) a) NI 6 
29 onpo mbpn ‘1 bya oss WW den oye 1 79> onp o1nn 

Jo? onNp wk) MBIT m7 

moon ’5 amp,...08 ks onnsd tbe Soa om boas Som oy wn wa) Wk) 8 
STNIIAD wD AI ND pnyimw ‘nD pnyin WS sand pny wt) MIT YI 


126 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


onmby opp aay> prt pow nn ots $55 Ninn a7 aNwa Dax 
opp azy> appid pr oy 27D NMOWT 'N) D2) NN 7aT7 Nd) On 
ptoupp pppon by 1d wy obyaw mayan ow Saws iss open 
wre b> Sy xnowa crmarenbxa ons iam upnw Spy dw on 
ot Sy) Sxwon Sy Saw 1b wn povbvo in opp ja ony beer 
aoxw nna psn S"x) sim iaina aasy> Sia pry iman upn 
nypds di mpo Son oasyd Sia aysw p’yyt on’ sow yd wa 
NNIDVNT NID DON MTT UP PD IPS ON OYA ONT WO ODI OTD Ty 
Wo PT TD pyyd did Nm ONT LR"y yp "a bapon pp ANoT7 
penyyw oat im> nat ows jasy> dia iew S"ys od Tos *ya ONT 
bxwod oxw AN WD On WoT oADy>S ToNw we: Sow ona 
DIpoa wot Wo owe rot TD Ty pyvd Ho cps Sx) abaw py 

yr xd oy 


Son Palate} hn 


by DD WN :'N PY ANN ‘PDA ‘NT T2 NNO) NNN AoW 

nxxo) "521 .noo7 maa innd yrsd SApA Pa [ND ANN PR Ow) 

ID> Sapa Ta pe MD ova OWI penywy an cnx NNO ADO 
by Fpoind) aan mw> qyuxnd owm pa cD noi maa innd 


ort TDW 


J MDD OD 2” !PYD ANN ONT MDD ONN¥D ‘ar DI) 'NT 73 
an a> ar se onpibw mnem Soxo 17297 .an bow rxaED DD 
3a52) .an asm bn owe 12 ps ome onow men cmwia xbw DE 
nov ney xdw tabar cptd womb o> we omer any 1d ore 
svym caw msi op> oxdw .an ym 


1) MEDIA 


nawn -2ya wad xdw sox mown ‘yn "Da Nk¥D) 3" =pyo ns 

sw mw da qed on powaw ma ows sdvn oywer onnap poind 
MpapINT MXxo 'm °'D2) .ANTD bya mwe wd eden mw ams b5 
S22 yywe 1S pom nawn bya ous oo8 we xd conn NNO 
amon mw ty mw xb3 2 97 Ssnwy on ma om Tow abe ax 


CHAPTER I 127 


TRANSLATION 


1. Iff a man passes through a community? where there 
is a herem} beth din and he is summoned to Court under the 
herem, in the presence of proper‘ witnesses, even if he be 
summoned in the market-place, the erem is upon him until 
he repairs to the Court to plead his case. Even if no wit- 
nesses are present, the herem applies, for witnesses, 
“are needed only as a protection against deceivers’’,> 
but a writ of insubordination® can be issued only on the 
testimony of witnesses. After having made his plea, the 


t K inserts before this section an additional Takkanah against 
denouncing Jews. See Addition 1 (Hebrew text) and below p. 175. 


2 This section is quoted in Res. R. Moses Mintz, 83. It is no 
longer in its original form. A paranthetical remark declaring a summons 
valid if it delivered otherwise than in the presence of witnesses has been 
inserted. But the insertion must have taken place at a very early 
date since all our texts have it. 


3 For the institution of Herem Beth Din see Part I, p. 6. 

Our Takkanah attempted to insure for all the rights that under the 
herem beth din were guaranteed only for the citizens of each individual 
locality. It protected the interests of the defendant to the extent that 
he was merely obliged to come to Court and state his case. It would 
have been obviously unfair to compel him to await the decision of the 
Court. In later times the expression Herem Beth Din seems to have 
lost its meaning, since every community developed the authority of 
calling its citizens a court. As a result the later texts have various 
changes of readings, the most important of these being that of JA and 
JB, Herem m1-Beth Din. 


4 The word for ‘‘proper’’ has been omitted in all the later texts. 
Yet it must have been in the original Takkanah. Before the parantheti- 
cal statement declaring witnesses unnecessary for the validity of a 
summons was added, the opinion doubtless prevailed that the presence 
of witnesses was an essential factor in the summons. In that case it 
was necessary that the witnesses be such as according to Talmudic law 
are fit to testify. When the extension of the law was made, the word 
for “‘proper’’ was omitted. M< still retains it, although the paranthetical 
statement has already been added. 


5 Kiddushin 65b. 
6 The writ of insubordination is called Petisha in the Talmud 


(Baba Kamma, 112a). Why the term is changed in our Takkanah is 
not clear. 


128 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


defendant may proceed on his way. The plaintiff is re- 

sponsible to see that the decree of the Court reaches him.* 
M = 

2. If? a man summons his If8amansummons his neigh- 

neighbor to Court and the bor to Court, and the latter 


« For the sections that are inserted here in all the texts except S, 
see below, chapter II. 


2 M is here too more original, but a misunderstanding of the early, 


text gave rise to the various differences which are found in the other 
versions. It will be noticed that the main differences between M and 
S, is that the latter contains an additional clause, differentiating in 
regard to communities having more than one synagogue, between the 
right to interrupt in the synagogue attended by the defendant and other 
synagogues. It will be noticed too on examination of the variants 
that while S speaks of two synagogues, the other texts speak of two or 
more. Moreover the other texts read ‘He (the plaintiff) may not in- 
terrupt the morning (Yozer) or afternoon service unless he has three 
times interrupted the services.’ This meaningless clause, has usually 
been explained to mean ‘‘unless he has three times interrupted the 
evening service.’’ So Bloch emends the text in his edition of RMP. 
So was it changed by the writer of S. 

The matter becomes entirely clear when we bear in mind the custom 
regarding interruption of prayers which was prevalent in Germany. 
Full interruption of the prayers consisted of arising immediately after 
the prayer of Yishtabah and preventing the reading of the Yozer, the 
benediction of the Shema. This is evident from Rabiah, Berakot 32. 
A manuscript Sefer Minhagim in the library of the Jewish Theological 
Seminary (now being published by my friend, Dr. Israel Elfenbein,) 
fol. 63a, contains the following statement: 
wee m22 by ym [away bx"x] aviods pad nan xp otxvs mbmpm boa amo 
72> Swav sy mn nbn Sva xd) many asy nben dyad ronaa pina awind dy> 
men Suad dia 15 any ope me on) Doayodd ‘mi pa maya wa Ipaa yD 2 

pt wy sy 
“It is the custom in all the communities that when a man summons 
his neighbor to court (and desires to) cause the hazzan to be seated, 
i.e., interrupt the prayers, on that account, he may not cause the hazzan 
to be seated at Barku, thus preventing the recital of the Yozer (the 
morning benediction of the Shema) or Arbit (the corresponding evening 
benediction) nor may he interfere with the recitation of Minhah, the 
Afternoon Prayer, unless he has thrice interrupted the prayers either 
in the morning at Ashre (that is before the prayer }yx> xa) or between 
the afternoon prayers and the evening prayers. If the defendant then 
refuses to answer, he may cause the prayers to be stopped until they 
do him justice.” 

The interruption of the prayer ‘between the afternoon and the 
evening prayers’ can refer to no stoppage of the recitation of prayer 


. 


CHAPTER I 129 


latter refuses to appear, the 
plaintiff may not stop the 
morning (Yozer) or after- 
noon service until he has 
interrupted their completion 
thrice. After that he may 
stop them entirely. 


refuses to appear,the plaintiff 
may not stop the morning 
(Yozer) or afternoon prayers 
or the reading of the Torah? 
unless he has thrice inter- 
fered with the evening ser- 
vice or the completion of the 


morning service. After that 
he may stop all services un- 
til his case is tried. If there 
are two synagogues in the 
city he may only interrupt 
the prayers in the synagogue 
which the defendant attends? 
But if he has interrupted the 
prayers there thrice (with- 
out avail) he may stop the 
services in both synagogues. 


~ 


but only, apparently to the gathering of the people and making public 
protest against injustice. 

The passage cited shows that the interruption of the prayers always 
took place before the beginning of the Yozer or the benedictions of the 
Shema. This was in fact the beginning of the public prayers. The 
Takkanah now provided that before interfering with the recitation of 
the Yozer the complainant would have to give notice of his complaint 
by preventing the reading of ys> x21 three times. 

It is only on the basis of the assumption that it was the German 
custom to interrupt the prayers at the end, that we can understand 
section 14 of the Takkanot Shum (below p. 228). That passage was mis- 
understood by Guedemann (1.280) but correctly interpreted by Rosen- 
thal (MGWJ 46.255). After failing to arouse public opinion by three 
interruptions of the prayers, the complainant would forbid the holding 
of any services until justice was done him. This was called ‘‘closing 
the synagogue.” 

« In Jater times it became more customary to disturb the Reading 
of the Torah than the prayers, see Takkanot Shum, 14 

2 The expressions used in the various texts have a distinct sig- 
nificance. In S we read that one may interrupt the prayers for the 
first three times only in the synagogue where ‘‘the defendant comes to 
pray’. That does not imply that that person is in the synagogue 
at the time of the complaint. In H and P it is expressly stated that 
the defendant must be present. The very fact that there is no agree- 


130 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


“3 Ift one lends a (house for use as a) synagogue toa 
community and a difference arises between him and one 
of the other members of the community he may not forbid 
its use to any individual unless he forbids it to all the other 
members of the community. 


4. If? a person has lost an article he has the right to 
interrupt the prayers until the community pronounce a 


ment as to what precisely is the requirement, shows that it was not part 
of the original compilation and that therefore each later writer felt at 
liberty to change it. That tends to confirm the theory expounded in 
note 2, page 128. 

« This ordinance is quoted in Orhot Hayyim (laws of the Synagogue 
26, and thence by R. Joseph in Sheartt Joseph 29, 69) and by R. Meir 
Katzenellenbogen in a responsum (85). On the other hand the author 
of the Or Zarua in discussing the rights of the owner of a synagogue 
against those to whom he loaned it, makes no mention of our ordinance 
(Or Zarua Baba Mezia, 21). 

2 This Takkanah is mentioned by R. Joseph Colon in a responsum 
(110). He ascribes it to R. Gershom. The custom is mentioned by 
R. Eliezer b. Nathan (Raben, ed. Prague 93c, RMP 770) but he speaks 
of no ordinance on the subject. In Maharil (Customs of Penitential 
Days, ed. Cremona 56b) mention is made of one who pronounced a 
herem during the penitential season in order to have his lost articles 
returned by the finder. R. Jacob Molin was angered, it is said, because 
the person had so little thought of the sanctity of the period as to be 
concerned about a mere monetary matter. He objected too, to the 
pronunciation of a herem during those days since it partook of the 
character of an oath. 

While the ordinance before us guaranteed to the members of the 
communities the right of pronouncing a herem compelling those who 
might find strayed property to return it, the custom itself was older 
than the ordinance of R. Gershom. In one of his responsa R. Gershom 
himself discusses the rights of the ‘‘communities”’ to compel the finders 
of articles to return them, although under the letter of Talmudic law 
they might be excused. (RFL 94 and Hayye Olam ed. Goldberg et 
Adelman p. 29). Nor was this custom limited to France and Germany. 
A question addressed to R. Solomon ibn Adret shows that the custom 
prevailed at least in some Spanish communities (Res. Ibn Adret, 4, 
104). 

In another form, however, the custom was even more widespread. 
We hear very often of a herem similar to that contemplated in the 
Takkanah before us, being announced to compel witnesses to come and 
testify. Professor Ginzberg calls my attention to a reference to such 
a custom in so old a source as Vayikra Rabba, chapter 6. (See his Unbe- 


CHAT EE TG. 131 


herem compelling anyone having information about the lost 
article to inform him. None may refuse to submit to the 
herem under the plea that he is ready to be tried in Court. ? 
So is the law stated in the Book of Barzilai,? in the res- 


kannte Juedische Sekte pp. 171-2). In that case there is no mention 
of any herem; the hazzan merely announces that all who know anything 
about a certain theft are required to come forth and testify. In a 
question addressed to Rashi mention is made of the pronouncement of 
a formal herem in such a case (RFL 29). We read of such a provision 
.in Raben (Prague 59d) and elsewhere (RMP 319, RMB p. 31, e¢ al.) 
It is clear that this was a revised form of the ancient Shebuot Ha-Edut, 
(Lev. chapter 5, and M. Shebuot, chapter 4). Instead of demanding 
that each individual swear that he had not heard about the litigation 
or the stolen or lost article, the custom naturally developed of taking 
the whole Congregation under oath by means of a herem. Thefts and 
losses being the most common matters about which one needs witnesses 
and yet does not know where to seek them, they are most commonly 
mentioned. But we hear on one occasion of a custom to clear titles to 
property by means of such a herem. In some communities no one 
could sell landed property without a herem being pronounced asking 
all those who knew of any flaw in the title to reveal it to the Elders of 
the Community or to the buyer (RMC 262). 


That this herem to compel people to testify is akin to the ancient 
Witnesses’s Oath, can be seen from the fact that other oaths underwent 
similar development. Thus we read in a responsum of R. Hai in Shaare 
Zedek (483) that if one has general suspicion against a person but not 
sufficient evidence to compel him to take an oath, one may announce 
a herem against the whole Congregation including that man. (Comp. 
also Teshubot Ha-Geonim Lyck 22, Mordecat Shebuot 706, Raben 
Sanhedrin 24). The close correspondence between these two customs 
was seen by the compiler of M who refers to the quotation from R. Judah 
Barceloni, given in the text of several of the sources. 


t The expression p> 3 which is here used is the one ordinarily 
employed in German texts, or rather those of the Rhine country, for 
going to Court in a litigation. It corresponds of course to the Talmudic 
expression xvq> mm) (Compare xv7> inn, Shebuot, 30a.) The ordinary 
expression in Hebrew for going to war is monbnd a and perhaps the 
conception of a litigation as a contest led to the coining of the phrase. 


2 The work referred to is doubtless the code of R. Judah Barceloni. 
It is expressly mentioned in one of the variants. (See also Halber- 


stam’s introduction to R. Judah Barceloni’s Commentary on the Sefer 
Yezirah). 


132 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


ponsa and ordinances of the Geonim. ‘‘No* defendant 
can be compelled to take an oath regarding a claim in which 
the plaintiff is not positive. Yet one may declare a herem 
binding the community, including the suspect to confess 
the truth. No one may prevent the pronunciation of such 
a herem. The words of the Geonim, remarks Barzeloni, 
should be observed and one may bind a community by a 


herem provided no one is mentioned by name.” 


M 


5. If? the Kahal has estab- 
lished an ordinance to help 
the poor? or for any other 
purpose with the agreement 
of the majority, the minority 
may not refuse to obey it 
saying, ‘‘Let us go to Court 
to discuss the matter’’, for 
everything depends on the 
opinion of the Elders’ of 
the City, according to the 
ancient custom or the needs 
of the hour. 


S 


If the members of a Commun- 
ity are establishing an or- 
dinance to help the poor or 
for any other purpose and 
most of those worthy to de- 
cide have agreed to it, the 
others may not ignore the 
ordinance, and claim that 
they wish to discuss it in 
Court, for no Court may 
sit in such a case, since every- 
thing depends on the opinion 
of the Elders of the City for 
such is the custom of the 
ancients. : 


* The quotation is found only in M and PB. A custom similar 
to the one mentioned is recorded in Shaare Zedek, p. 83, Teshubot Ha- 
Geoniin, ed. Lyck, 22, and Mordecai Shebuot 706. I have not, however, 


been able to locate the quotation. 


2 This ordinance is quoted by R. Meir b. Baruch. See RMB 


p. 209. 


3 M must have been the original form of the ordinance. As it 
stands in most of the texts it is full of obvious self-contradictions. The 
expression ‘‘and they are among the worthy ones”’ is a paranthetical 
one inserted quite peculiarly in the midst of a sentence. It is evidently 


a later addition. 


4 The reason for specifying the helping of the poor is not clear. 
It is possible that originally that ordinance dealt only with the ques- 
tion of raising money for charity, and that later scribes added “‘or 


other Takkanot’’. 


5 It is clear that the expression ‘‘the members of a community 
make a Takkanah’’ does not mean that the Takkanah was put to 


ae 


CHAPTER I 133 


6. Ift one has left books with his neighbor for safe- 
keeping the trustee may not retain them because of any 
claim that he may have against the owner. In regard 


vote, for that is denied by the expression ‘‘the majority agree’’. It 
would be most unnatural to express in this form the thought that a 
resolution had been passed by the majority. It seems to me that 
‘‘the people of the city’’ refers to a council; perhaps the council of seven. 
Perhaps we should read ym °aw as the Council is usually called. If 
we assume that to be the meaning, the ordinance becomes very lucid. 
“Tf the council proposes a Takkanah, for the sake of the poor or other- 
wise, and the majority of the community agree to it, but a minority 
object, then the minority cannot set aside the Takkanah, saying we 
will come to Court against you. For no court can sit in such a matter. 
It all depends upon the will of the best men of the city (provided of 
course the majority agree)’’. See Part I. p. 51 for the various concep- 
tions of the rights of the community. 


t The difficulties in regard to this section are numerous. First, 
it is the only section in which there occurs the name of an authority. 
Secondly, the authority mentioned is R. Tam, who was born about the 
year 1100, more than half a century after the death of R. Gershom. If 
we assume that it is of later origin, there are other difficulties to trouble 
us. We find R. Samson of Sens (d. c. 1215) deciding a case in which 
the principle of this ordinance was involved making no mention of 
either R. Gershom or R. Tam. A and B, two brothers, owned some 
books in common. One of the books was used as a text book by the 
son of B. Later A and B divided their property and the book which 
was being used by B’s son fell to the lot of A. For a time A did not 
object his nephew using his book. But soon be began to insist that the 
book be returned. The young man claimed that A owed him some 
money and that he would keep the book until the debt was paid. R. 
Samson says in his responsum: “‘It is true that there is an ancient 
herem against retaining because of a claim anything which came to 
one’s hands as a loan or as a pledge’’ (RMP 479, Res. Maim. Mish- 
patim 21). Now R. Samson does not distinguish between books and 
other property in the matter of retaining. He thinks that there is an 
ancient herem in regard to any retention of pledges. But he could 
hardly have referred to a Takkanah of R. Tam as an ancient herem, 
since the years of R. Tam’s greatest activity coincide with R. Samson’s 
student days. Moreover, it is most probable that if he had known of 
the Takkanah from our compilation he would have made mention of 
R. Gershom or R. Tam. 


But the matter is even more confused. We have a decision of R. 
Tam, himself, in a case similar to the one described referring to the 
ordinance as an ancient enactment. In that case two men had gone into 


134 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


to this is there an ancient herem, but R. Tam added that 
no article left in trust may be retained except that a teacher 
may retain the book in which the pupil has studied but 
nothing else. ’ 


business together. The one had supplied the capital, and the other 
was to manage the business. The profits were to be divided equally. 
Jewish law looks upon the manager in such a case as bailee in regard to 
the half of the funds, the profits of which belong to the investor. He is 
a borrower in regard to half of the funds, since the returns on it belong 
to him. (Baba Mezia 104b). In ‘the case before R. Tam, the ac- 
tive partner, pleading certain claims against the owner of the capital, 
refused to return the invested money. A local court had decided 
that the seizure of the bailments had been illegal and that the manager 
would have to make restitution and then sue for his claims in the or- 
dinary way. On appeal, R. Tam sustained the decision of the local 
court, explaining that there is ‘“‘an ancient herem”’ against retaining 
bailments for any cause. (RMP 335, RMB p. 2, Res. Maim. Mish- 
patim 1, Mordecat, Baba Mezia (9, 404). It is clear then that R. Tam 
could not have originated the extension of the herem to other things 
than books for he would certainly not mention an ordinance of his own 
as an ‘‘ancient ordinance’’, It is singular, too, that while he speaks 
of the Takkanah as ancient, he does not ascribe it to R. Gershom. 


R. Eliezer b. Joel Ha-Levi, a younger contemporary of R. Samson 
of Sens, gives us some clarifying facts. He tells us that in his day 
there were different customs in regard toretention of bailments. ‘‘ There 
are places in our country”’, he writes in Germany, ‘‘ where the custom 
prevails not to retain any books which have been loaned as security for 
debt. But there are places where that custom holds only in regard 
to teachers of children where the teacher may retain the book only in 
order to obtain due payment.’” (RMB p. 1, 3 and see RMP 576, 663). 
In France we have seen that everything was held to fall under the scope 
of the ordinance, . 


This then is what seems to have happened. There was an ancient 
German herem against retaining books. There was a similar French 


custom which protected all bailments. It is the German custom which | 


is referred to in our text as the ‘‘custom of the ancients’. R. Tam 
merely extended the custom of France to all the communities. The 
original Takkanah with the change introduced by R. Tam, was still 
further amended by a later scholar who wanted to include his local 
custom, limiting the prohibition to teachers and permitting even for 
them the seizing of text books only in order to insure payment of tui- 
tion fees. The whole was then added to the Takkanot of R. Gershom, 
to which they do not belong at all. For this code deals almost entirely 
with communal matters, and this is a matter between individuals. 





. 
| 





CHAPTER I 135 


M 


7. If* a contribution has 
been assessed against a per- 
son he may not summon the 
collector to Court until he 
has paid the tax either in 
cash or given a pledge for 


itsvalue. After that he may 
summon the collector to 
Court. Even before he pays 


he may make complaint 
without appearing in Court 
until the collector does what 
seems right to the commun- 
ity. Otherwise a ruthless 
man might deprive a mem- 
ber of the community of 
his property and declare 
that he is collecting it as a 
tax.? 


5 


The agents of a Community 
who are collecting a tax, 
whether with the help of Jews 
or Gentiles, and the as- 
sessors, cannot be summened 
to Court until the tax has 
been paid in cash or pledges. 
After the tax has been paid 
suit may be brought against 
anyone who acted illegally. 
Evenbefore payment is made, 
however, if one feels that 
his rights are being violated 
he may make complaint 
until justice is done him, 
and the wrong righted in ac- 
cordance with the view of 
the Elders of the Community. 
Otherwise the collector 
might use the tax as a pre- 
text to take from him an 
exorbitant sum. 


t The custom described in this ordinance is well established. * 


See RMP 708, RMB 414, RMC 49, RMR 371, HOS 275. 


The section 


is quoted in the responsa of R. Joseph Colon (17) as an ordinance of 


R. Gershom. 


2 There is good reason for believing that even M represents an 


outgrowth from an older text. 
dicts itself. 


First as M stands before us it contra- 
It begins by saying that one cannot cite the collector 


or assessor to Court, and ends by permitting one to complain “‘with- 
out calling a Court’’. It is clear that the ‘“‘complaining”’ is only an 
evasion, for surely it would require a Court to decide what was fair 
taxation and to state ‘‘what seems best to the Community’’. Some 
of the texts, (L, P etc.) try to avoid the difficulty by assuming that one 
may complain only when ‘‘the gift (contributed) itself’’ is wrongly as- 
sessed against one. But those are obviously mere attempts to rectify 
a difficult text. It is evident that originally there was no provision 
for “complaining without a Court’. Moreover, the various texts are 
so confused about the “‘assessors’’ and the ‘‘collectors’’ that it is clear 
that there has been some juggling with them also. There can be no 


136 ' JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


8. Villagers' who come to 
the large communities on 
Yom Kippur and bring their 
candles, called czerges, must 
place them in the synagogue 


Villagers?3 who come to a 
larger community for prayers 
must place their Yom Kip- 
pur candles in the synagogue 
for such is a herem. 


for there is a herem concern- 
ing the matter. If they 
have two candles, they 
must place one in the syna- 
gogue, and the other may 
be placed in their own lo- 
cality where they pray 
privately. 


doubt that originally attention was paid only to the assessors. If 
they found difficulty in having the assessment paid, they would appeal 
to the Gentiles for help. The later compiler or copyist could not under- 
stand why any attempt should be made to restrain the assessor when 
it was really the one who was collecting through Gentile powers that 
was at fault and so he added also the “‘collector’’. 

That there was no provision originally for special cases is evident 
from the Takkanot Shum (9), where the Three Communities adopted this 
in principle as a local Takkanah. There is no mention there of any 
“complaining without a court’. R. Meir b. Baruch, who appears 
to have had only the first five sections of the compilation before him, 
knows the principle involved in this Takkanah as an ordinance of the 
“ancients”’ (see references in previous note), but he, too, does not know 
of any right to complain in the synagogue in such a case before paying 
the assessment in money or securities. 

1 In the case of this section we are more fortunate, as the original 
text is retained in one of the recensions (S). The simple rule is there 
laid down that villagers caming to larger cities for public worship on 
the High Holidays, must set their Yom Kippur candles in the synagogue 
in which they pray on Yom Kippur rather than in their homes. The 
word my here has the same sense as in the phrase mxp mMy nnn 
(B.Sabbath 22b). When the Takkanah spread the custom developed of 
having two candles, the one for the synagogue in which one prayed on 
Yom Kippur, the other for one’s local place of prayer. The writer 
of K misunderstood the word my, and took it to mean “leave’’. 
He added, in order to be more explicit, ‘he shall leave what remains 
of the candle”. The later writers strayed still farther from the original 
by inserting, ‘“‘and the second he shall bear with him to the place where 
he prays regularly”. The original custom was doubtless to kindle 
the second candle in. the village place of worship for the Day of Atone- 
ment; the writers, however, thought that both candles were brought to 





CHAPTER I 137 


9. All! vows which are taken in the synagogue must be 
paid in that city in accordance with the custom of the 
city? and its ordinances, if it has an established custom. 


10. Frome the beginning of 
Adar till Purim, those who 
pass through cities and vil- 
lages in which permanent 
are obliged by an ancient 
herem to pay the Purim tax 
for the benefit of the poor 
of the locality services are 
held. If no one requests 


Anyone passing through a 
locality in which regular 
services are held, after the 
beginning of Adar is obliged 
to pay the Purim tax if a 
demand for payment is made. 
If no request for payment 
is made the herem does not 


apply. 


payment of the tax, the 
traveler is free from the 
herem.§ 


11. If° there are only ten men in the synagogue, none of 
them is permitted to leave until the hazzan has completed 


the City Synagogue, and that after the fast was over, the villagers 
left the remnant of the one candle in that synagogue. The remnant 
of the second he might take with him to his home place of service. 

In later times the custom of leaving the remnants of the candles 
in the Synagogue does not seem to have been prevalent. It is told 
both of Maharil (Minhagim, Cremona 69a) and of R. Israel Isserlein 
Leket Yosher p. 142) that they took remains of the candle to their homes 
in order to pronounce the Habdalah over them. 

« This section is omitted from P. It has come down substantially 
in its original form in all the other recensions. 

2 K fixes the term of payment at one year. Paying a vow with- 
in a year is required by Talmudic law (Rosh Ha-Shanah 4b). 

3 In Tashbez (173) we read that in a place which has no perma- 
nent minyan one may retain the Purim tax to give it to a community 
where there is such a minyan. 

4 In the well-known responsum of R. Eliezer b. Isaac of Bohemia 
to R. Judah the Pious, RMR 112, mention is made of the custom of 
using the Purim tax to support the hazzan of the synagogue. It is 
not likely that the custom in this regard was uniform. Probably our 
ordinance contemplates gifts to the poor. 

5 This custom must have been widespread since we find a Middle 
Age parody to this Takkanah. See Davidson, “Parody in Jewish 
Literature’, p. 136, no. 14, 

6 This section also occurs as the ae section of the secondary 
recension of the Takkanot ascribed to R. Tam, see below p. 192. 


138 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


his prayers. If, however, the hazzan has begun the re- 
cital of Kaddish or Kedushah in the presence of a quorum 
(ten persons), he may complete it even if one has left. Thus 
far have I copied from the Manuscript of R. Moses of 
Verona’, but I, Jehosifiah Benjamin,? claim that the 
law is found in the Josefta,s which reads: “If some of 
the men present have left, he may complete the service, 
but to all such as leave the services under such circum- 
stances, we apply the verse: And they that forsake the 
Lord shall be consumed.’’4 

12. It is written that it is forbidden to disturb the prayers 
on Sabbaths or Festivals unless the complainant has 
attempted to interrupt them three times during the week 
days without success. In case of matters of public concern, 
the prayers may be interrupted even on such days. 


* See Berliner, in Hebraetsche Bibliographie, XII. 39, and Gross, 
Gallia Judaica, p. 129. both of whom transliterate ‘‘Verona,’’ but 
compare Lauer in J.J. L.G. XII, p. 19, who proves that Verona would 
be written xn. 

2 The writer of the Munich Talmud Ms. 

3 I have been unable to find the statement in the Tosefta, but 
it is found in Jer. Megillah 4.4. In some of the later texts it is quoted 
in the name of R. Nissim. The earliest text mentioning him is K. 
We know from the Shibbale Ha-Leket (ed. Buber, p. 10) and from RMP 
766 that it is taken from Megillat Setarim of R. Nissim. 

4 Isaiah [.23. 


a ee | 


CHAE LE ROT 


REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SUSPENSION OF THE HEREM 
AGAINST PLURAL MARRIAGES AND SIMILAR REGULATIONS. 


The following regulations occur as has been stated in 
chapter I, p. 112, in every text of TRG except S. The 
variants are therefore here given under the same notation 
as is used in regard to that text. In addition to those 
texts use has also been made of AA (Hebrew 88), which 
is an old German recension of these regulations found in 
RMP 1022. AA, M, and K, have been printed below 
in parallel columns. AA and M are printed in full since 
they are the oldest representatives of the German and 
French texts respectively, while K presents several interest- 
ing variants which made it advisable to give it completely. 
The variants from E and C are attached to AA, which they 
resemble most; those from JA, JB and V to M, to which 
they are most nearly akin; and the rest are given as variants 
to K, because while the development of K has in the case 
of these regulations somewhat obscured its relationship to 
the group P-PB-PC-PF-H-L, it is certain that they are akin 
tLowit. 


TEXT 


rT 3 NS 
wan ow iDanM oawanionaw ona mb>apainapnonn.s 


sw swe oxdw pwn) 


a) .Ov WS ONT .N) 1 
_ OW WES mbnpn nipn anim 
Ov WAT 
ON OY OWT IPA Ww LN 
W377 OY WS ONT 71.7) 
OU) 


ox xe oxdw it) 2) 2 
xwrrdy im .wapd xbw on 


Ly 


enw 1) 3 


omy 2nd xdow ony 
pao mpynnd ps ow 
svowD OWI MNDI 


“N11 42938 ID MPI 
at Nt yan owe 1 
OY WN 

nywd xbw var 2 

mbonp wowo .ar Nt. 3 
mixx wown 

HDAS SPAY TWaDOs Ni 4 
DIY NIT WDD war 


27ND OWT PAI ow 
ny awd spya ndun 
pao avna> pr ow 
MSN 4'V9 DWI TNA 


5 mbapm mpn .4 1 

Ci IND: th ste 

oy. .7 3 

msax ‘9 mbmp ‘wo .7 4 
NTT WMD) ANU 3 
79 myt 9 mM>baAp 9 nN 
SANTIITN PAY) Ww" wy 


140 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


iT 
pa rena? px 40, 
nbrp7'1o GO WIN SIND 
SPIN WD MEIN 1) 
pb) npqx mn mand 
lity 1020” xd 97 
pnb aman DYD INTY 
L2NANw py IMS. 
anand NAN) ANI 
JON) “PA AA ANAS 
13,.Myoa IW MN DwpA 


mpn on 14538 .2 


oP 1 4 

silldalsaeeaee 

Sd) ON 2251 6 
19° oh TNISaN.... ap 7 


em an smbap 29 myx 
nvnon 39.1.9 moa "39 

NyTIONU) «ONOVIN LN 8 
MBAS) UX .2) NANI 
—)) NPI wy .ANTTand 
TANYDN wT) WD) ATID 
"8 .T) NDI) ANTIADIN 
2 OWN ANMD 31 
JNDAX) NOIR NTN 

.T)) .OMN .1) 27.37 N19 
pina mx omKx.m .'> on 
stynnd isp xbw 

mMs8 YN" ,7) 10 

pyo IND XO ON WM 11 
a 

NTnY wT) aN) 12 
72 nnn) WN Anan 
.2) MNDwWOI IN MyDd3 7DN} 
ma 7A nnd Anais WAN 
7) MYDD IX MNDWD3 IN 7 
m7") Ann ADT NAN 
MmndwN3 IX MydA yOX 72 

yoy Sapow nvm a) 13 
mo PIX yD 02 NNN 
SSN 19 PAS PR pnd 

DAN .77.97,77 .2,.3),8) 14 
anxd mexm wan odbappe 
snown jow> .m .'> wm 


= 
SONS ON NBA ANTI 


WT? XD cox DDD" NO 
~hn> «Nap 7oyy 
an¥ ANN. NAN 
Myna }ON] Pa nnn 

.MNDWdI IN 


poapow span .3 
oaann ypdy sow 722 


.O7 (a1 WNT 5 

TUN TY 12 DST ...0N 6 
ONTO TY .atkt ONY 

7372 2 oyY .at Nt 7 
now nes wad ar pn 
any7D 

smbonpm on war wet 8 

JNM.At NT TWN) WN .2 9 
2p nown and abo 

12 10D TIS at Nt .2 10 
[WN .ot OWN WNT ND 
enn 


SS 
xd om on m>rp ‘10 


Dy INTwW TY ws 
jax. nnd aap 
TS sanan> NANw 
6MYyda joOX) 73 NNN 

.MNDWDA IN 


7bapow = =oam .2 
sax 95" pby sinnn 


rane) .n mann .1 5 
.mnain> 

.MydD2 I% MNDWwA .7 6 
.MNDwo2 IX NNW Myd3 .n 

Sapow .n 47 

ynna .n .7 cyd>y jnnn s 
72M 

Oy Fe Bs Sh 


= ie 


iT 


PR 1eparTw ism >mpn 
SAN "YD 1774 


xba 7 nowm .3 
oon vw onn nbap 
Lon» p> Ly’ 7p 
w 2098 —P nownr 
a1 oaiowswa anad 
sy pnd pawn ps 
NON) T7130 DyY INTw 
nana). 7A ANans 
IN MNDwWNA ON] Tr 
(myn 


bapow 2207NmM .4 

OWI MND 1D WD WN 

yas ps Js monn 
MEAN "WD 


moa mynd Fax v1 15 
MND DIP 0.7 wa 
spnnd px dws. end 
19> 2m wrx owdwa xox 
‘on x’> omoynnd NK 7D 
WIN 

wa 1 71.3) 1 16 
STS 7) JN 

Pw 2117 

NNTP .T wa) LN) 18 
NNTP MN 

ey TO eee 

ow>wa and 4x .m 20 
OND 

xba mond pr wn 21 
9°72" OYN) 7) 13D OYY 
£1273 Dy2 IN Ty pnd 

axva 5 'T MpyD] 22 
ama mbyod yyy msm 
Lay 


CHAPTER II 


| 


‘YO Pr¥ Lops) ANDI 
IT 


nba 7 mown .2 
oon w onn nbap 
nown o»p> mnoap 
Bow>ya waanm 7? 
Oyo intw ay 147501 
spnmd asian 


bax .ar.ar ops bax 111 
wkd 

pnd w JN Wor Nt. 12 

LOVIN "ID WT NT 13 

wT PR p31 WNT 14 
penad oyy ww ty. nad 
“pn7? nyy ws? on 7513) 21 


NS 
yew 10ox"s) pnd aND 
MSN ID 


Syi'r7p o1M .3 
nbap xba 7 mown 
7 nownr7 apd izo7n 
ow>wa nnd w qs 
pyy pox odio 
16.ynad isan 


spas ps bax 4 
5 'ynotp om .4 
YNDTP ON wy 7 

12 0 13 
nip 5201 .7 
.qWw13d .7 


rica 


142. © JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


AA 
1. The! herem of the 
ordinance of the com- 
munities established 
by R. Gershom Me- 
or Ha-Golah? against 


TRANSLATION 


M 


1, The herem de- 
clared by R. Ger- 
shom against mar- 
rying two wives may 
not be suspended ex- 


Ks 
1. The herem de- 
clared by R. Ger- 
shom against marry- 
ing two wives may 
not be suspended ex- 


t This text is not properly an ordinance at all. It is a state- 
ment of the conditions necessary to suspend the operation of the herem 
of R. Gershom against plural marriage. Gross in Gallia Judaica (p. 
237) imagines that it is an amendment of R. Tam’s to the famous 
Takkanah of his predecessor. But that view is untenable. We 
shall see (p. 145) that the latter parts of this text were unknown to R. 
Yehiel of Paris. While it is true that the first section may be, and 
probably is, earlier than the second and the third, we have no reason 
for assuming that it is the work of R. Tam. Gross’s opinion is very 
likely based on the ascription of TRG in one text to R. Tam (See RMP 
153). But we have seen that this section was only in later times 
added to TRG, and that the ascription of that text to R. Tam is 
erroneous. 

2 It is generally recognized that the herem against polygamy was 
promulgated by R. Gershom. R. Meir of Padua, however, believed 
that it was the work of R. Samson b. Abraham of Sens (France about 
1200). In a responsum (13) R. Meir quotes R. Joseph ibn Habib 
as saying, ‘‘although R. Samson of blessed memory instituted a herem 
in the presence of many scholars, that one may not commit bigamy, 
in a case such as this (where there are no children by the first wife) 
the Rabbis did not institute the ordinance. This is the opinion of 
the French scholars as quoted in a responsum of R. Solomon ibn Adret.”’ 
This quite astonishing news which is unsupported by any other evidence, 
we are at first tempted to ascribe to a copyist’s blunder since three 
of the letters of pw. and pwow are identical (Gershom often being 
written Gershon). But that the error, if it be one, is really R. Meir’s 
is evident from the statement made somewhat later, that “‘it is possible 
that the author, (R. Joseph ibn Habib), makes a distinction between 
the ordinances of R. Gershom and R. Samson.” It is clear, therefore, 
that R. Meir actually believed that R. Samson had made a Takkanah 
which differed in some respects from that of R. Gershom. 

At first sight the matter gains plausibility because of the statement 
of R. Solomon ibn Adret that the Takkanah of R. Gershom lapsed 
automatically with the year 5000 A.M. (1240C.E). It would be natural, 
if that be true, for R. Samson, who lived a little before the time of the 
expiration of the Takkanah to have renewed it, perhaps with amend- 
ments.- Unfortunately the statement of R. Solomon ibn Adret regard- 


AA 
marrying two wives 
may not be suspend- 
ed except by one 
hundred men from 
three countries and 
from three commun- 
ttiest. These men 
shall not agree to 
suspend the herem 
unless a cogent rea- 
son is given for the 
request and unless 
the payment of the 
Ketubah is assured 
either by cash or 
other guarantee. 


CHAPTER II 


M 


cept by one hundred 


men from three pro- 
vinces like Anjou, 
Normandy, and Isle 
de France. ‘These 
men shall not agree 
to suspend the herem 
unless a cogent rea- 
son is given for the 
request and unless 
the payment of the 
Ketubah is assured 
either by cash or 
other guarantee. 


143 


K 


cept by one hundred 
men from three com- 
munities and from 
three countries, like 
Aragon, Lombardy 
and France. These 
men shall not agree 
to suspend the herem 
unless a cogent res- 
son is given for the 
request, (and unless 
the payment of the 
Ketubah is assured 
either by cash or 
other guarantee). 


ing the temporary character of the Takkanah of the Light of the Dis- 
persion, is itself in need of verification. 
Ibn Adret’s statement is not found in his published responsa, but is 


quoted by R. Joseph Colon (Res. 101). But according to that citation 
Ibn Adret’s authority was very indefinite. He was unable, apparently 
to name the source of his information, and said, ‘I heard it in the name 
of the French scholars.’’ Had the information which reached Ibn 
Adret had a true basis, how could we explain the fact that in all the 
French and German discussions of the Ordinance of R. Gershom, there 
never occurs any reference to this time limit. Is it conceivable that so 
important a matter would be overlooked by the many scholars who 
deal with subject? One is forced to the conviction that Ibn Adret’s 
authority was inaccurate. 

If we abandon the theory that the ordinance of R. Gershom lapsed 
in 1240, we’cannot understand why any renewal of it should have 
been necessary. It was observed by all and it would have appeared 
unnecessary for a scholar of the twelfth or thirteenth century to renew 
the ordinances of R. Gershom. (See Takkanot Shum Text M, end, 
below, p. 23). We must therefore assume that the statement of 
Takkanah is based on a misreading of the Nimmuke Joseph. This 
belief is corroborated by the fact that our editions of the Nimmuke 
Joseph have R. Gershom where R. Meir reads R. Samson. (See 
Nimmuke Joseph, Yebamot 39b) We must therefore come to the conclusion 
that R. Samson had nothing whatever to do with the Takkanah, neither 
amending nor renewing it. 

* Rosenthal (Hildesheimer Festschrift p. 40ff) accepts the reading 


144 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


‘“‘of three countries, of three communities’? as more original. He 
believes that originally the Takkanah was made by R. Gershom for 
the three communities of Speyer, Worms and Mayence. It should 
be suspended therefore on!y by the consent of representatives of these 
communities. When the Takkanah was extended to all of Germany 
and France. the requirement was made to have 100 men from three 
provinces. The words, ‘‘of three provinces’’ were then inserted, and the 
original reading kept as well. Sorunsthe argument. It is not, however, 
acceptable (see also above, p. 24). If the Takkanah had been established 
only for the three communities, it would doubtless have been liable to 
abrogation by the representatives of the three communities, just as writs 
of divorce could be granted by representatives of the three communities, 
properly elected, without requiring 100 men, selected without any regard 
to station. Moreover, it is scarcely credible that a Takkanah intended 
only for the three communities should have gained such wide vogue. 
Even the later Takkanot of the Three Communities were in reality 
the decisions of Synods representing the whole of the Rhine country. 
Knowing what we do of R. Gershom’s synodal activity, it is very prob- 
able, to say the least, that this most important and best known of his 
ordinances should have been made by one of the Synods of his time. 
Finally, Rosenthal seems to imply that this section dates back to R. 
Gershom. ‘That is unlikely. It speaks of R. Gershom in the third 
person and could not have formed part of the text of his ordinance it- 
self. If we assume, therefore, that R. Gershom originally intended 
this Takkanah at least for all the German communities, if not for all 
those of France, as well, we must interpret the words, ‘‘of three communi- 
ties of three provinces”’ as being merely a legal redundancy. What 
is wanted is that the 100 men come from three provinces. It is possible 
of course, that in earlier times, when the Takkanah was limited to Ger- 
many, the requirement was only that the 100 men be of any three 
communities—not the three communities, as Rosenthal would have it. 
It may even be that the confusion arose out of a misunderstanding of 
the word Medinot originally used in the regulations and still found in 
text M. This word has regularly in Hebrew texts from Arabic-speaking 
countries, and at times also from other countries, the meaning of city. 
It would be natural that as the Jewish communities of the West de- 
veloped and the word Medinah came in Germany and France to be 
limited more and more to the connotation of ‘‘province,’’ that two 
interpretations should arise. As usual both variants crept into the 
texts. In any case it is probable that when the French Jews accepted 
the Takkanah the people felt that the 100 men ought to come from 
three different provinces. This hypothesis gains color from the fact 
that in every case where provinces are mentioned by name in the earlier 
texts, they are French provinces. When the Takkanah spread further, 
the demand was made that the releasing Rabbis hail from at least 
three different countries. The scribes in accordance with this new 


AA 


2. The herem! taken 
upon himself by a 
betrothed man (to 
keep his engage- 
ment) also may be 
set aside? only by 
one hundred (men) 
but they need not 
come from three 
different countries. 


CHAPTER II 


M 


3. The herem which 
people take upon 
themselves may be 
set aside by one 
hundred (men) but 
they need not come 
from different 
countries, 


145 


K 


2. But the herem 
regarding engage- 
ments may be set 
aside by people not 
living in different 
countries. 


interpretation, intentionally or unintentionally, misread the original 
text in regard to the names of the provinces. For Normandy they 
substituted Lombardy; for Anjou, in some cases Hungary in others 
Aragon, and so forth. These variants will be found in the notes. 


t It was customary to re-enforce the Takkanah against breach 
of engagement by having the parties undertake under the herem to 
marry. This custom is referred to in the list of Takkanot. It is also 
mentioned in another case in connection with R. Yehielof Paris. Since 
Jewish law requires the widow of a husband who died without children 
to marry his brother or undergo the ceremony of Halizah it became 
customary for childless husbands on their deathbeds to grant their 
wives writs of divorce, with the understanding of course, that should 
they recover they would renew their marriage. R. Yehiel would engage 
them for the re-marriage under the herem, before they were divorced 
(Kol Bo 141). The betrothal and its release are mentioned again in 
connection with R. Yehiel. In a case that came before him, he de- 
cided that only thirty persons from three provinces were needed to re- 
ease them. The one hundred persons ‘‘were needed only in the case 
of the herem against compulsory divorce’’ (Mordecai, ed. Riva, Yeb- 
amot. 1.742). That differs materially from the custom as described in 
the text before us, which required for the release of the ‘“‘betrothal under 
the herem’’ one hundred persons not necessarily from three provinces, 
and for that of the ‘‘betrothal without the herem” thirty persons. 
The customs instituted by R. Yehiel in this connection spread far and 
wide continuing for many centuries (Res. R. Meir Lublin, 123). 


There can be no doubt, however, that the reading of M is the older 
and that the rule applied in the first instance to any herem taken by a 
person upon himself or herself. 


2 A very interesting case came beforé R. Meir b. Baruch (Hagahot 
Mordecai Niddah 781) under this section. A young man who had been 
affianced to a girl became an apostate. She was afraid to choose another 


146 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


3. It is an ancient 


herem thatan engage- 


ment in the case of 
which pledges have 
been placed as se- 
curity should be ob- 
served even though 
the parties did not 
bind themselves by 
aherem.* Butitmay 
be released by thirty 
men. In all these 
cases a cogent rea- 
son must be given 
for the release. 


2. An engagement 
in the case of which 
pledges have been 
placed as security 
without a _  herem 
should be observed 
according to an an- 
cient herem, but it 
may be released by 
thirty men; but in 
all these cases a cog- 
ent reason must be 
given for the re- 
lease. 


3. An engagement 
in the case of which 
pledges have been 
placed as security 
without a  herem 
should be observed 
according to an an- 
cient herem, but it 
may be suspended 
by thirty people. In 
all these cases the 
reason forsuspension 
of the herem must 
be made clear. 


4. If a man binds 
himself by a herem 
he can be released 
only by one hundred 
persons but they 
need not come from 
three countries. 


in his place because of the herem. But R. Meir decided that so long as 
he remained outside the fold, she was not bound to him. Should he 


repent, however, she would have to accept him in spite of the blemish, 
provided of course she had not in the meantime been engaged to another. 

t A betrothal without the herem is, of course, less binding then 
a betrothal under the herem. Just what the ceremony of betrothal 
consisted of, it is not easy to state. From some sources it would seem 
that the parties gave security to guarantee their maintaining their 
promises. This can be seen from an oft quoted responsum of Rashi 
(Sefer Ha-Orah 141, RFL 27, RMC 90, Res. Maim. Kinyan, 26). 
He says, ‘“‘and in regard to your inquiry concerning the case of R who 
engaged his niece to his son, and they affirmed their words and placed 
the guarantees in the hands of the kablanim.’’ The German-Yiddish 
expression for engagements—knas legen—would seem to bear out this 
idea. On the other hand in the more ancient Ma‘aseh Ha-Geonim, 
p. 65, the expression 7 nown is used merely as referring to the ceremony 
of betrothals. We read there, ‘‘And if he did not marry her in accord- 
ance with the Biblical custom, but only in accordance with the local 
custom, where they put a covering on the head of the bride as the 


CHAPTER IT 147 


sign of engagement’’. It is possible, of course, that besides the custom 
of covering the future bride’s head, there was the further depositing 
of the securities. The expression 7 nown which originally meant 
“giving a handsel’”’ as pledge that one intends to marry the other, 
came to mean the pledges by which the promises were secured, but 
which were not a necessary part of the ceremony. The two parties 
might trust each other to pay the fines eventually. The word Shid- 
dukin itself, properly meaning betrothal, underwent a similar develop- 
ment in meaning. In a passage in Kol Bo (124:31) it means nothing 
else than the pledges by which the betrothal is guaranteed. In Or 
Zarua (Sanhedrin 28) we hear of a custom to declare the engagement 
before the ‘“‘best men of the city”’, that is, the council, so that it might 
have communal sanction and thus be the more binding. See also the 
Geonic Responsum cited in Jttur, Pesakim I, 66d. 


CHAPTER III 


TAKKANAH OF RASHI 


In Hagahot Asheri (Baba Batra chapter II, section 11) 
we are told that ‘Rashi ordained in France that if one has 
money belonging to his neighbor, with the arrangement 
that one half of the gain is to be given to the investor and 
one half to the manager, the manager must pay taxes on 
the half of the capital, the gain of which is his. If the 
capital belongs to Gentiles, one need pay nothing. Regard- 
ing places where this ordinance does not hold, R. Tam 
stated in a responsum that the manager need not pay any 
taxes on the capital with which he is doing business.” 

In the responsa of R. Meir b. Baruch (ed. Berlin, p. 320) 
occurs the text of a Takkanah ascribed to ‘‘R. Solomon of 
Troyes” which contains the first of the ordinances cited in 
the name of Rashi in Hagahot Ashert, but in which no 
provision is made for exempting from taxes investments by 
Gentiles, when made through a Jew. This omission should 
not, however, argue against the identification of the 
Takkanah with that of Rashi, since a comparison of the 
text of Hagahot Asheri, with that of a cresponsum of R. 
Tam, quoted in Mordecai, Baba Kamma, 10.179, wil! show 
that the original Takkanah did not exempt the invest- 
ments made by Gentiles through Jews except by implica- 
tion. 


In Mordecai we read: 

mop sinw oxnm yo 8bs um xd ons Swe nnd ar mabna pimw mo 
pp NOS Ta ko Mbp NIMwoO“NT yO BNI IPS Nimw oxnm yo xd 
Ppa Ad7 obD oan ps on Swo ob2 nyt ndonnn oy apw 

ND J2 spy” oder msds -ypr mobw wa ypn 4D) 
‘As for the custom which is prevalent in this kingdom of 
paying taxes on the capital invested with one by other 
people, that custom applies only to the half, the profits 


CHAPTER III 149 


of which belong to the agent. Even in that case they pay 
only because they have undertaken to do so by general 
consent. And one pays no taxes on the capital invested by 
Gentiles since it 1s considered a batlment. ‘Thus did R. 
Solomon, my grandfather, ordain in our kingdom.”’ (The 
text of the Mordecaz is to be compared with the Nimmukim 
of R. Menahem Merseburg, printed at the end of the Hanau 
edition of Res. R. Jacob Weil). : 

It is more than likely that it was R. Tam who stressed 
the fact that one ‘‘does not pay on the money invested 
by Gentiles,’’ but since that clause was put in its present 
place, it seemed to the copyist that it was part of the 
Takkanah of Rashi. There is to be no reason therefore 
for refusing to accept the following text as that of the 
Takkanah of Rashi. 

A summary of the contents of this Takkanah is given 
in part I (p. 37), and it is therefore unnecessary to add a 
translation here. 


TEXT 


Tyna wbx yn mmpap wws mbap ay wy ww wns 
‘yo joxy oxs> exw ym xbw iso oot oes ws do by anon 
Nyx TNT podwa O8 O) ND IN OV on Tax 
'y $3 mw wn pyan oy diya yap xbw axa Osc nyt Stand 
m7 orm yo ynse rpapm pobwn Sy nat yrne> on nwo Spr xbdi 
syn ocaoinsw mo Dd iby said 's b> yn onoy ay am oxdm 
woo Son yn> wid “aw wwnotpo wbap yD) TID OVD WT) WwWND 
> xd yaa mw on dw yom mrt oD) ons wrovwn Son Jab 
w ON invansaw psno yo yan Secu ppp io w ox 4S ppm 1 
72 w ON) [POT Os | myay ow -wwom ant o>) ADD > 1b 
ama nm’oainsb’r nb>nnw aston »Son pis dw nyansa mbna Sse 
J2v wyow 928 1 x? ynw qTIna pr bom yo I mwh Tayy and 
10 Jw Wyn jo Kximw pond ww yA oD TINNY ONDIP mp 
xo) oD ay jo Nd ya non DIDTS Ndi ad wa ox ad bon 
IND 77 yO ON 1a ndeew sy in x? nn WIS AT ON) OS 1 
~ya mam yor b> ym yo wesim onmiad ws oad mn 2m: 
sax ya ym vya onminad asa nym nyw p> yym yo dr os 
i” ynxd> son Sow wpa oes oD INNd w oN Dd IMND 
wyrwe moby "ano pnyin .onpon Syw jon 


CHAPTER “EV 


TAKKANOT OF R. TAM 
TEXT A. INFORMERS 


The Takkanah of R. Samuel b. Meir and R. Jacob Tam, 
his brother, regarding defamation was, as has been 
shown in Part I, p. 42, probably a direct result of the 
Second Crusade. We have six texts of this Takkanah 
before us, of which three have been printed. They are to 
be found: 1. In RMC 78 (called below RMC, Heb. 4); 
2. In Ha-Lebanon, II.91, which text has been published 
from a Guenzburg Ms. by B. Goldberg. This text is called 
below D, (Heb. 9); 3. In R.E.J. 17.66, from Br. Mus. Ms. 
11639, Margoliouth 1056, published by Neubauer with 
variants from the Guenzburg Ms. This text we will 
call N (Heb. 3). The manuscript material consists of: 4. 
A Halberstam Ms., now in the Montefiore Library (Cat. 
Hirschfeld, 492, fol. 22ff). This text is referred to as R., 
Hebrew 7. 5. Another Halberstam Ms., now in the 
Montefiore Library, (Cat. Hirschfeld, 130). This text is 
called C, Hebrew 1. 6. A British Museum Ms. (Add, 
27129, cac. Margoliouth 1281, ff. 126b-127a). This text 
is so different from the others that it has been printed 
separately below, p. 159. 

Besides these texts there are three abstracts of the 
Takkanah which so far as can be seen are independent 
of one another. They are found in the Munich Talmud 
Ms. (Strack, photographic edition, folio 756a); in the Kol 
Bo (section 117) and in RMP 1022. These abstracts are 
of little help in reconstructing the original text. From 
the RMP text, however, we learn that among those who 
attended the synod at Troyes which ordained these 
Takkanot, were R. Eliezer b. Samson of Cologne, and R. 


CHAPTER IV 151 


Eliezer b. Nathan of Mayence. This information we find 
in no other source. The abstract which is found in Kol 
Bo (section 117) has retained the language of the original 
Takkanah to such an extent that it supplies several variants. 
It is referred to hereinafter as K, Heb. 3 while the variants 
from the RMP text are marked 8. The abstract which is 
found in the Munich Talmud Ms. (Strack’s photographic 
edition, folio 576a reprinted below, p. 191) contains a sec- 
tion which has no corresponding paragraph in the text of 
the Takkanah as we have it. This paragraph reads thus: 

on oTa ps aww pwr own dy Sinn xd on 


“The herem shall not apply to one who denounces a malshin 
who has previously denounced him to Gentiles.’’ This 
provision which is not found in any of the complete texts 
of the Takkanah, is repeatedly mentioned, usually with 
disapproval, by R. Meir b. Baruch. In one case (Res. 
Maim. Neztkin 15; Mordecat, Baba Kamma, end) a cer- 
tain R. Joel had made statements to Gentiles which were 
detrimental to a fellow-Jew. His defense was that 
he had merely acted in vengeance because the other Jew 
had made similar statements about him. Some scholars 
were inclined to acquit Joel on the basis of the alleged 
Takkanah of the Communities justifying acts ‘committed 
in passion.’’ R. Meir declared that he could not believe 
that such a Takkanah existed. For the second informer, 
Joel, had gained nothing by bringing trouble on his adversary. 
The Communities, at best, might refuse to punish Joel. 
They could not, however, refuse to award damages to 
the man who suffered through the denunciation. 

In another case (RMP 717) a person had been struck 
by another. The son, seeing his father bleed, became 
furious and denounced the assailant to the authorities. 
R. Meir refused to consider his filial ‘‘indignation’’ an 
excuse. ‘“‘Even if his father had bidden him denounce 
the other, he should not have done so.”’ 

In a third case (RMP 994) R. Meir, and recognizes the 
possibility of the existence of such a Takkanah. A de- 
nounced B to the authorities because some fifteen years 
(days?) previously B had bitten his finger until blood flowed 


152 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


B summoned A to Jewish Courts for defamation. A pre- 
sented a double defence. First, he had made no defama- 
tion. Secondly, if anyone had made any defamation in his 
behalf, that was done “whilst his heart was hot”. R. Meir 
as usual believes that in such a case the informer ought to 
be freed from fines and punishment, which otherwise would 
be laid upon him, yet he could not be held guiltless for the 
damage he had done. At the end he adds, however, “But 
if there is an ordinance of the Communities to free him 
completely if the act was done in the heat of passion, I do 
not take issue with an ordinance of the Communities.” 
On the other hand R. Hayyim Or Zarua (HOS 25) states 
quite definitely that if a denunciation were committed in 
time of anger, he would not convict the informer or compel 
him to pay any damages at all. He even quotes R. Meir 
in support of this decision. Whatever may have been the 
source of R. Hayyim’s statement of R. Meir’s views, 
it is certain that R. Hayyim understood the ordinance 
as completely freeing the A/alshin in times of indignation. 


TEXT 


wamoms wd oa qu wm qenn pind mm imp muon px 
mp7 op upima oan poy by nppdy npn yow wxan mp aa 
sminn> 2nnbS nynt ods ty odyna pom wx ond oso mpyind 
Py yq 40 Ox NINoD ya naxen Stan xd yynd sow dyn 
NOTTDA w'D) Kya) TOI onwd epT Sew wa ory sia Sy1 
ows) oma pin Poynd oiwinn oD way 8x» Oy 77m orm 
ow on? Sy ydy0) anos wbn aay tatb odin on orada 
amon) mvay 3275 ow muram 


worna mp pind wen a yy tpind...nmp 1 
yoyo wy samb>> nyn 0 2 

YD Dy 3 

1.7.2.0 2 [ow 4 

ordy) rsa wy .7 0 8 

> wa onwy 777 Ly 6 

th SF 

JSD 1 . 8 
JIN) 2 IRWIN ,2 9 


CHAPTER IV 153 


2pon yap ima ws osm ww “pram ad wxyn jy 
serdoax ouwy mma pwr 3asdxds ob mmoap prs 
wspay rman z7er 7 dja) ~oam ewndbsp vawy ayn pqNT 20) 
o7 Sam 10mg °awr) swEwrN spxdo oxyy MDM oD 
Sav uw mp ona jo md pax cawy wart o> aww) arm 
swe Sy no00) yim) 2990 TD OPTIAT yDw RS aWN wr IDF 
7a ast ans xb ods nos po pam owp> oyow: oda ony? 
.ana”> 


OPIN oamp mex ws 55 125y woanm wepn wam ww 41 
apPIT Tw yon? Sy wei ww 130) P72 Pan ANS ND WS 
sows oy (pa omw nyt NSoos vytap yn deny yn 


ms wis yD oP Syn ond ww mobdnd i6yow sath Syzam ow) .2 
1oy’pw) 1807) PAN NN ASD wy wsmims dy wos wan wan wan 
IN INYAN TAN) OND) 2opIn NP Now IMS DYDD OT 1 1S 
ON) Py mw mya ONY 21002 2OYD ono NV Nw RNdwI INDD 
2272 DwY ADDN yA yA OYE 


one? Sy yn ony nya Sy 230>y xbw poanm wan wm .3 


armaap $51.91 
snpax cavr $5 01.9.0 [mD...PT °DdN 2 
svbs 73 
ww yy 4 
rds wy 5 
yroxp wy 6 
wry) wn 7 
NWP) pr? .d 8 
WIWIN) .D 9 
sinvtianid) .3 10 
wmyu 
2onopsa wand opintm oanpn mes ws So by ors on xdw oy fom.. by 12 
yy on .4 0 13 
{> wrt qm .o 14 
aanan dy Sn xd sata ony wn tad nab janp Nin os JN GN 15 
9316 
nN As YY aN WR 217 
Lar oie i 
adpws vy 19 
yy 20 
bata Le Val Win 7 be SP a opm ie ea 
psiwoT nok 37 *D Sy pM yr aw IPN VEYD IMy? OF ON OW ww .D 22 
combs 
by os ON’ NOW Ly 23 


154 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


172 WAN OPwYD JwNDA peny non yan pwd dyad yyra1 1 
epym ony myaw ep by iaxe xd ox Suda o> Sy AS 


sndsdi Sew 15 yw pesr ora ond Sed woanm isn wim .4 
bs yo Tews 529 ren awadi imxad 


Sy mow dod oxen oon ap dw wont won win Tyr .5 

Nam ata xd 2951 oup>r wnys > yew ww qb ~p by van 

Q@pyay) spyus 1>_N) OWI DoOsy OMY wood mow MaTa Nd 
LOY 


snowa) pn moea Np ob>s armon mwoy Sy aym .6 
eo-ninn woo sadotay Sse S> pon mr mopwai Nn’D ows OND) 
wp) ody omsam opebn spodm onpadm oinn ors 


7TPODIP DD YIBD FOI} wr emd np rnp wnryn Sy aaymM .7 
a7 Ds tom 122 Dx pe qwR MDD OTN WM sinw> wy AaIDM 
2y MNP AM OMI vmaw waat ANY wat bs waxy 
b>p) 10¥N> wNX NOM ON YI pw ~pnoM mobo byr Orwhor 
MwNIPA ODSxy wm ana 1297 May Ndi yy xd inn yaxs JN ods 
sa wipo by ws poxn ipyo odtayw nnd: isytpnimd a 
now 


mm poy Sim xd nyw ond wy ws aap isqdon mx on) .8 

1EMpP YD NAY 2) ww w> wy Anw may xo ory xbdw taba 

OPN) ANwea joxy num yaw xd) mayno yo xd nviyn aNwa 
17D mayn iy) adi ayp TD mow mbow xbs 


baond > .bore tp abn ono bawd .y .poxn ova andx? ond daw 3. .p 1 
ond 

wb oy 92 

spyrax DN) pyuy .y 3 

“2 mwp..raym 2 .2nar Sy asym. .ninn ans by aaym .y 4 

porns .15 

S wWNIWN.......0 INN .3 6 

ad>yp on yn wan >> b> wd 7 

WDD NP .D wMDD WT. 8 

DD ANY .D 9 

amyr> .> 10 

yy 2.0 1 

Ry Hs en A Ps 

> 3 .y..D 13 

.pINT *DY MNDUD .2 .y 14 

Senn mvp IW LD 15 

by 168 


CHAPTER IV 155 


2X) ON TAT OW. OY w Tad NAP JAIDN 1791.9 
ory psy Sar xd ona vy aad mayan oms 

So ony mrad mobnd panp 55 pwpad omnnT 1M) .10 
neyo 3mm meyd asp awd omdy ops abs wn-vno nos anyon 
5a bow = peo ’oma bsinw peo Toma apy .mbw aptsa 
wring mobw 7’a pny’ 4apy 


TRANSLATION 


The introduction which is in the usual style of the French 
rabbis of the period recites the serious troubles that had 
come upon the Jews because of denunciations. Some had 
defamed their fellows in secret, other had committed the 
crime in public, with equally dire results. The ordinance 
continues thus: 

“Therefore have we taken counsel together, the elders 
of Troyes and her Sages, and those of her vicinity, the 
Sages of Dijon and its vicinity, the leaders of Auxerre, 
and of Sens and its suburbs, the elders of Orleans(?), and the 
vicinity, our brothers, the inhabitants of Ch4alon-sur- 
Saone,! the Sages of the Rhine country, and our masters 
of Paris, and their neighbors, the scholars of Melun and 
Etampes, and the inhabitants of Normandy, and the shore 
of the sea, and Anjou and Poitiers, the greatest of our gene- 
ration, the inhabitants of the land of Lorraine; of those men- 
tioned here, some have already agreed and from some we 
have not yet heard, but since the matter was pressing, we 
were confident (in their agreement) knowing that they are 
great men who listen to their inferiors, and knowing that 
the decision is a correct one, which if it were not written 
down, ought to be written down. 

1. We have voted, decreed, ordained and declared under 
the herem, that no man or woman may who bring a fellow- 


Syoey et 
etoria poy Sim xd pyran ama on dy myo qya yainm ua ox .2 2 
Daa 
mod "3 pny? a opr "pr yma aa ads wp wD 4 2 Nn ya pny’ .y 4 
2 om "3 PID DIT MoM) 7a pny’ Ss>xo apy v3 Synw pwd 
5 .o pro ja now yp 5 


t See Gallia Judaica, p. 592. 


156 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Jew before Gentile courts or exert compulsion on him through 
Gentiles, whether by a prince of a common man, a ruler or 
an inferior official, excent by mutual agreement made in 
the presence of proper witnesses. 


2. If the matter accidentally? reaches the government 
or other Gentiles, and in that manner pressure is exerted 
on a Jew, we have decreed that the man who is aided by 
the Gentiles shall save his fellow from’their hands, and 
shall secure him against the Gentiles who are aiding him so 
that the Jew may not be harmed or even be in apprehension 
because of the Gentiles, nor shall he lose his claim or his 
property. He shall see to it that his fellow shall be in no 
fear of them, and he shall make satisfaction to him and se- 
cure him in such manner as the seven elders of the city 
will ordain. If there is no such board in his town, he shall 
act on the order of those of the nearest city in which such 
are to be found. 


3. He shall not intimidate the “seven elders”? through 
the power of Gentiles. And because the masters of 


* More noteworthy than the prohibition against taking Jewish 
litigations to Gentile Courts, is the permission to have them adjusted 
tnere if both parties agree. The Talmudic law prohibits the use of 
the Gentile Courts in any case, for ‘‘he who brings a Jewish suit before 
the tribunals of the idolators profanes the name of God and glorifies 


the names of the Idols’’ (Gittin 84b). It is evidence of the greater 


tolerance that was arising among the French rabbis that they do not 
include Christians in the category of idol-worshippers. The only 
reason for keeping Jewish litigations in Jewish tribunals was the fear 
of the injustice of the Gentile courts. Therefore, where both parties 
agreed the rabbis of France could see no reason for hesitation in 
bringing matters before them. This is in consonance with the lenient 
view of some of the French rabbis in regard to wines of Gentiles and 
similar matters (Comp. Tosafot Aboda Zara 57a, See Part I. p. 41). 

2 The position of the Board of Seven in the Medieval communities 
is not very clear. Josephus speaks of seven judges in each city (Anti- 
quities, 4, 8.14. Comp. also Acts 6.3). The expression occurs also in 
Tannaitie sources. We read ‘Seven men from a city may act on behalf 
of the city, three men of synagogue may act in behalf of the synagogue’’, 
(Baraita Jer. Megilla 74a). The meaning of the statement is not clear. 
Raba in Babli (ibid. 26a) mentions in that connection the ‘‘seven best 
men’’. 


————— 


— 


CHAPTER IV 157 


wicked tongue and informers do their deeds in darkness, 
we have decreed also excommunication for indirect action 
unless he satisfy him in accordance with the decision of the 
‘‘seven elders”’ of the city. 

4. It was further decreed that he should apply to them 
(to the ‘“‘seven elders’’) on the first possible day, and that 
he should return the damage in accordance with all that 
they decree to him. 

5. No?! man shall try to gain control over his neighbor 
through a king, prince or judge, in order to punish or 
fine or coerce him, either in secular or religious matters, 
for there are some who play the part of saints and do not 
live up to ordinary standards. ? 

6. He who transgresses these three dies 3 of ours shall 
be excommunicated, all Israel shall keep apart from him, 
those who sign (this decree) as well as those who do not sign, 
their pupils, and the pupils of their pupils, their comrades, 
great and small. 

7. As for him who transgresses our decree, his bread is 
that of a Samaritan, 4 his wine is that of libations, his books 
are as those of the magicians, and who converses with him 
is like unto him; and he shall be in excommunication 
like him.s But he who takes these matters to heart, 
and is apprehensive of the words of our Creator and our 
words, will find our words good and upright. There is 
an old ordinance against informers, malshinim, and those 


* This section was re-enacted by the German communities in 
their synods in the thirteenth century (see below p. 232). 

2 A play on a phrase ascribed to King Jannai in Sotah 22b. 

3 The three decrees are: 

(1) That prohibiting application to Gentile courts for remedy against 
Jews; 

(2) That enjoining on a Jew on whose behalf appeal had been made 
to Gentiles to save his opponent from their hands; 

(3) That forbidding a Jew to accept a Jewish communal office at 
the hands of Gentiles. Since there are five paragraphs preceding 
this, the scribes were confused by the mention of ‘‘three’’ decrees and 
omitted that word in Dand N. 

4 Hullin 13a. 
5 A play on Deut. 7.26. 


158 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


who tell tales in secret; if a man sin against man, let him 
be judged by proper judges,' but let not the hand of a 
stranger pass among them, and let them behave themselves 
with sanctity and purity, s¢parating themselves from the 
peoples of the land, then shall each come to his destination 
in peace.’ 

8. If because of the fear of the Government, a man 
speak to the informer occasionally, this excommunication 
shall not fall on that man, provided he does not use this 
pretext to multiply words with him. This is an applica- 
tion of the principle given in regard to the fasting of preg- 
nant and nursing women on fastdays other than Yom 
Kippur and Tisha B‘Av,—‘they need not fast, but yet 
yet they must not indulge in delicacies; they may only 
eat and drink for the sake of the child’. 

9. If one refuses to come to Court and there are proper 
witnesses in regard to the matter and the plaintiff collects 
a claim through the power of Gentiles, our excommunica- 
tion will not apply. 

10. We, the undersigned, request all those that are in 
touch with the government to coerce through the power 
of Gentiles anyone who transgresses our commandments, 
in order that the Scriptural injunction, “‘to observe very 
much and to carry out’’4 what they are commanded, 
may be fulfilled. And righteous action leads to peace.s 

Samuel b. Meir ' 

Jacob b. Meir 

Samuel b. Jacob 

Isaac b. Solomon Troyes. 


The following is the text of the Takkanah as it is found 
in Ms. Br. Mus. Add. 27129 (Marg. 1281). The text is 
in some respects shorter than that given above, but it con- 
tains a number of points of interest which appear to justify 
its inclusion here. 


* A play on I Samuel 2.25. 

2 Cf. Neh. 10. .29, and Ezra 6.21 for the variant. 
3 Cf. Jer. Taanit 64c. 

4 Deut. 24.8. 

5 Play on Isaiah 32.17. 


CHAPTER IV 159 


Sg) pNo 227 72 Sywow wan nw moon ps NIpw ansq or 
boa inden ws Sram ano DANS pny’ aT [PND F’2 apy’ 
patim ody ano AaAIM nDwN rmd) nea mobnaw Advan 
ody ova Sy omby ‘now onn adem maxon ox wnn od 
nasa > xm 


yom pw> osexw dy wm sem wena me pind mn nyo px 

nd) 85 > wPtaD) wrt qWw ....... Wan Jw) Kom) AND orwby 

oO Ta an saw mw ws 55 oINM WIM Iw an>d> AT ONT 
.Ow> OTY (BT ow nyt xd ox veto veto Syn -w 


Wn FD “"y wmMpI1 mM ASwoor vd wan oat dydan> ow 

PD? ONT D> pw OTN MAN AXDw wr ims dy wo sn wn 

'rON'W WD USD INY'AM WD) TAND) o7D OND) YT] ND Nw 
vyn nw 


oy ond Sewn on Sy ym ony ‘rove xdow wotnm wasn wam 
70x ws S22 ropa wads amspd andy ond Oxwd Sopw pwn 


”y saya Sy aatw dood onwsa a xdw oan ran wan Ty 
Tym oY 7372 IW oesaT ata 9d pupdr wry > «ww Joo 
pam) ‘md owa Nnowa) abxa Ta NA ond TON Sy AS nth Sy 
JDP wns oNan bo) woo draw ym dsenw $2) aa anwa>d 
satan $21 [pepip IBD YA.) p’op [77] yw) 1" EMD NB 1B) 
mp2 WTP wy 


bonw nt by nay moabn> sod int by amon dy art 731 
1 >>S5 iyane) oy wy. Nd) OmED IY 435) ?n-7NN 

IN D1 7D Jn onde oy rapw ww 55 tod yn oa ONwT 
Ss ods 1655) sor wer inxp by yond: yD ws mobn> axanw 
copra mm xb on > 

xd qx rtm poy Sim xd nyw ond wy tap qbon mst on 
‘yn ANWA Mp May codes ‘ONT wy Aw may xd. ony? 
32 mow mba xbs opusna ‘oxy mami py xd 48 mayno pr 
stdin arp 


OMS NXP O8 T3732 ow. My wi t’ad xad jaton by on 

bana wos marr yoy Sire oxd S*s) oma oy aad ayan ams 
pxaw tad 737 ‘ow 4s %Sy ow maT NT py xdbi nan? op 
by aaym b> on "y mobod “arp $55 men inn o'y Koya 
Soin by SNM yO OTP NNOwW) OAT AN kw ASF yaa wns 
“py Son jpmws) mwam wom) AND vrwon ond ono Sn 
aw ‘aon Py pots awa Py pyoa ytd ren pyr caw 


160 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


soqenm yo mwy 7a b> ator oy myw pd 3975) pan awa ps "DN 
aniot oy n> amp wew mw 339d saym id rem opy) pyr 

‘ oy bb53 ws 
onyay Ssaw S55 ofan) oN) dra pms 12 poinn mp 
SNs8 DIpN3 Tain ‘nownD jbads AXP onINAw MYtpaw 


TEXT B. 


RETURN OF THE DOWRY 


This ordinance of R. Tam has been discussed in Part I, 
p. 43. Neubauer published two versions of it R.E.J. 17. 71. 
The first, which will be called N herein, he based on three 
manuscripts, one from the British Museum, 11639, Marg. 
1056 (L. Heb. 83) which he uses as a basis; a Bodleian Ms., 
Neubauer 847 (O, Heb. 33), and a Guenzburg Ms. (G. 
Heb. 33) from which he gives the important variants. 

The second version (S) of Neubauer’s is taken from 
another British Musuem Ms. Harl. 5686 (Sc. Heb. 73). It 
was originally copied from the Sefer Ha-Yashar of R. 
Tam. We have thus to compare it with the text as found in 
the printed Sefer Ha-Yashar (Sa. Heb. &’) and in the 
quotation from that book in the _ responsa-collection, 
Binyamin Zeeb (60). The latter is referred to below as 
Sb. (Heb. 2). 

Besides the texts that have been printed, the following 
Ms. material was used in establishing the text of this ordin- 
ance. Ms. Halberstam, (Cat. Hirshfeld 492, ff. 19-21 
called herein D (Hebrew 7); and a text taken from the Sefer 
Ha-Yashar, called herein Sa (Heb. 7). 

A version that differs in many details from either of 
these is found in RMP 934, (P, Heb. -); and still another 
in RMC 72 (C, Heb. 3). There are also included below 
the variants found in the summary of the Takkanah given 
in Kol Bo 117 (K. Hebrew 5) and in RMP 1022 (MP, 
Heb. 8). 

The N version shows definite signs of being more nearly 
original than the S version. Thus in paragraph 2, the 
versions read thus: 


CHAPTER IV 161 


nw nay Ty sorp bw qd) xba mw sin ana nwo xvi do by 
wrt $5 pine mw 


(N) (S) 
sym innd purwonn do Ns mwY> TWRT wwoM 
rear? ws peta amd 


That if anyone marries a wife, and she dies within a 
year of their marriage, he shall return all the dowry 


. (N) (S) 


and all the jewels to him and all the jewels of his wife to 
who gave the dowry or his _ her heirs or those who gave the 
hetrs. dowry 


The change! of text in S makes the provision difficult 
to understand. Is the dowry to be returned to the heirs 
of the wife or to the person who gave it? They need not 
necessarily to be the same. Suppose that her father was 
living but that she received her dowry from a brother who 
was wealthy. Is the dowry to be returned on her death 
to her heir, namely the father, or to the giver, namely 


t Another case in which it is clear that S changed the text of N, 
occurs in paragraph 3. . There N reads ma nym yo inn ny 
md des) [Ape nw ans ano des odd pnna yan xdbw 
“‘And we have further ordained that so far as the uncollected portion 
of the dowry is concerned, the bridegroom shall never demand it.” 
The copyist of S must have inserted nx before the word jnn7 so 
as to read: nno 1px odd non ne yam xbw mab pnyn yo wn ny1 
atd> Spy) prim mie and 
“‘And we have further decreed that so far as the uncollected portion 
of the dowry is concerned, he shall not demand it from the bridegroom 
at any time.” 

The various texts of S have sought to remedy the defect by chang- 
ing the words jnn7 nx to nina ns ‘‘the father-in-law”’, or inven nN Yon ns 
“his father-in-law or his mother-in-law’. The very fact that the 
variations are so many shows that they all had a difficult text as a basis. 

Further variants which are common to all S versions are the omission 
of the words mwxn nndn ox in par. 2, the substitution of wna" for mnw the 
same paragraph. 

In the second half of the Takkanah, curiously enough, S has generally 
preserved better readings. These are marked in brackets in the text 
below, while the readings of N are given in parentheses. 


162 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


the brother? No such difficulty can arise from the text 
of N, since there it is expressly stated that the dowry is 
to be returned to the giver, or if he is dead, to his heirs. 
It was the misreading of the abbreviation "wiv as 
movay> instead of rw, that misled the original copyist 
of the S version. 

Furthermore, S has incorporated into the text of the 
Takkanah a note which was originally placed after it. 
It reads thus: ‘Afterward I recalled that is taught in 
Torat, Kohan Sifra, ed Weiss 11 id) ao. see 
that the verse, ‘And your strength shall be spent in vain’ 
(Lev. 26.20), refers to the case of a person who gives his 
daughter in marriage, and makes a large settlement on 
her, and before the wedding week is past, she dies.”’ 

The words ‘‘afterward I recalled’? show that this is 
not part of the ordinance. In C where a somewhat elab- 
orated form of addition is found, it is expressly stated to 
be not part of the ordinance but some additional words by 
R. Tam or one of his pupils. 

It is clear, then, that S, which has changed the text of 
N, and which has incorporated into the text of the Takkanah 
an editorial note, is a later version that N. 

C has several readings which are akin to N, but also 
some which rather echo S. It has, as has been mentioned, 
the note about the extract from Torat Kohanim, although 
it does not incorporate that into the text. The same is 
true of P and D, both of which are evidently derived from 
the same text. We must therefore assume that S, P, and C 
had a common origin, in a text to which this editorial note 
was appended, and which differed in several minan matters 
from N. 

The following diagram will help to clarify the relation 
of the texts to one another. 


CHAPTER IV 163 


Original Takkanah 


x 


| | | baal | 
No (a3) NI (83) Neg (aa) ‘i Bia) I C() 


| | | | 


Sea) ac seletealy: SCital) Laem oCaal) 


TEXT 


49YTN WYOY AWS sNNaTI avy wma 2odyn Wbo7 1oyu ws 
ANTON DWM APIS SN AS ’awy yma mds NIN WKN oPYpD 
mon vdsa 7m past aap anay dy a oT) 6197) WRI 
panna pt uma ywSyr ps iomaa an pos p12 sywm sn-vns 
sty sop bw td) xba iannw tin ann isms xu d> 12by wa 


05 27 wa fomdrn ...oyun 1 

orpim ov opditn wo 'S wa fomdrtn 2 

8N373°57TN ND NDI AwWY PMID [AVN way nN) 27.3 ExNAI ...odITN 3 

2.2/5 7 (TORN OF YPM .OYTN nyDY .7) .OYTN onyow .2 [myIN nynw 4 
STONY JANN OPP TD OND NAN) OY) .73 

STII] AVPINT NAS NY NTN) WIN NDI 2 NTO MW .a 5 
NOND ON WD .2) NTO HO_) PIR NI ND NTT aN np. 
NPIS wD NPN DMD AVIN NI 27) ANTON DoD BW TAN TINDTN 
SNOW WD) PIR NAW oT ANTONI wy 

Oh av k tS 

i wee kT LEANk7 

> 3.2 [pono ..yon nvna s 

22 yor "3 1 [pl ya yer 9 

STAN Deer asta RS, 1h 16 

V3 npn. P29) 03) 82 (pt maa 1 

poe [7 yats 

JS 8) [TE 13 

pro by anew ot wen 3" P67) 02 Wk” [nw 14 

JO 8 LNW? «Ty 15 


164 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


sentin 2inn> mean sown So 2:ent b> a imw Nw? nw Tay 
mindn oon smbab ony? 7xd) oxi Now ipa aNww oo spwird ow 
13 Ty) LSI poyM 117N3D°b? ANNA poyN’ 10NxDI7 19 PI TWN 
i7Nan NX? iemMyanw Jy owyam ox ond isaw or "5 145". Jr 
coy 5 say ae xd y'n 1808 myann orp ox °D monn pby 

mind es odiyd 21nnn zoyam xow maid nym yo 19 Ny? .2 
aimd> (d:ay) 2277sw) Mw ANN 

2691009 All. 1d worn 2awInw awy 2a1pby nap araan .7 
dy odin 55 Sy ardy arm woonm 7272 nee 277K oy Fon 
wD sav esnpq¥ cawy SD dy mbynd and awRDd ryt Sy) 


POW DT. PRw) 02 CPsw 1 

J}. 2 

SOYIN) TP. wk. oo puwon $273 

sent and w mead 22.2? agent and ow pwrrd op cyward wound 4 

ord .o oa cred 5 

.cnba xby ams wo oN OD 27) Pa 2 Exim Ndw 6 

ov ot oa den wo gd) 7 

mba) mood .o tmbod 8 

12.7.2) 8? 2) een oadnn ox wo .ndon meen ox w8 [nenn mondn ox 9 
O07 

<IPAS wT) TP [X¥DIT 7D 10 

TAD oT). T? 2D” WN’ 2D ae TNAD 11 

SINV'Y MOIS TD Ta? saad oo 05 2 o> a a png 7d poyn 12 
<a 

YD oP DR Ty) 13 

i oy P a er ee 

020% 2 [a 15 

JS. pmyanmw ty) 16 

Sinn a) 1.2) Ne Nie 

mad os oy owdy anxd two on gd on yn or ’S anxd oa for ’D ...oN 18 
on oy "5 amxd sy 32 oa arn pvp ad on or 'S andy oy .o .1'n awn 
vp mm rd on odn 

JOS 8 LIN Ty 19 

ay .7 .2 [yan 20 

NX 2) ANYON NN) PON AN 2) AMD ANN 7? JIN NN NN wD NINA yD A []NNA 21 
<7 8 WN? jon 

PROM NW . WW .7 .2 [PRw) nw 22 

Savyp .2 Pawy ardy 23 

TWA NY WRN WII .O ..wOIT WW p'p .7 worm) ww .2 [wo wT 24 
LP DP YT WW 7) WPM VD wD .3) ww .2? 

JO 2 7 0 wk 0 2  pymby 25 

2y00> .2 [Dd 26 

OY 'D 2) OP 2.) WN? 7 3 2 ETS oP 27 

MDW .D .JU"D) MINN ANION NPI .3 TWP OT DWI) BWw’P N_W .7) 28 





7 


CHAPTER IV 165 


by omby mor iw ay qono >a awed qyop caw ANTON 
ANwWOT IN INT 2pEpy ind wom Fox wD AN ovp> aynrr 
2am adm 4928) won YIN smwNT nv ans yond yn 


sma asy=por 7x ean ans > any xd) maw smart yw ys a 


37a 72 pny y"] ND 72 103py siwoNnM WAND wANW 7 
LPI 7a any 


DY’) ‘SIT oMpNa '_) OD NNN 134wY TD NIN }D 120NI 
Www i6émmaind isonw1D nyAD ww mpod aA 1ennn (W’y Xp 
wow os 45 w& DOND pn? om ('D 1D SIP) ANDINA NDA 
mnwon %D isnyaw ip pon xb) i7maI poo A? InN pop ina MN 
now IPIWN1 110 207ND1 IND NX 197 DDD N¥DI IND ANow Ty oxxd 
myn moan boo 881 4D ANN UXxYw 220WD) TN AMSA 217: 
trate Sy e3smby maw mows awann 


TYPO NAVINI DW" NPA .2 ANID AVIND WWM NBA NP NTI) PINT 1D} 
QOD) PINT ANTI NAW. ANTI AMIN WMD BWIzd 223 

2D pin. .2) «82 [70 1 

.poby °D [pDpw 2 

WRT 2) XY [TWNT 3 

tom Soy a waa wk inom bon 4 

sand 433.2) 6S aw. an 4373.5 

now) ynw 2? 02?’ adm yo naw mw 7 jnw mp adm yo novi ‘nw .12 [nnw 6 
jnw m9 29m jp 

Sy OW PN 7.2 (ayy ok 7 

may .o [13 3 

yod nby row os 4X pram oor ta ow ots ow Tey? Sis wo DonM 9 
.codya moby mann yo mm mdy 

PO MDT et od! pal watt LP Ds eal 10 

po .a) [p7p 1 

won ny ans wo wor m>w nod cans .7 03 1D INN 12 

<AINDIN NWI) 7 Pw 13 

ae ere (horns £4 

; PINT 7] NID wD 15 

w<mibx *Sy nawia At) ip wana rata sayosma pnb oms po tmnoind 16 

byt) 0 17 

nvon on nyay aay> .a cnxxd ...nyaw 1s 

Tap .2) MT 728 19 

YMyD NX TODD) .& [ND TAND) 20 

N82 wD [Ny) 21 

JS 14) [ANID ...0WD) 22 

oni .b"r 4192-73 pms’, y")] PRD 73 3py? .7 PRO 7’3 apy .a Loew Sy ody 23 
’3 pny? xo I'n3 apy? .b"t »podnp ans wwon's pwd aw mp2 .o .b"r pap 73 
| pup 43 om .73 


166 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


TRANSLATION 


Following the example set by the community of Nar- 

bonne, we the inhabitants of Isle de France, Anjou, Poitiers, 
and Normandy have bound ourselves to obey the following 
ordinance by a severe oath; 
1. That if a man marries a woman and she then dies within 
a year of the marriage without being survived by any 
permanent issue, he shall return to the giver of the dowry 
or his heirs, all that is left of his wife’s dowry or her jewels; ? 
and her husband shall not designedly consume them if 
the wife falls sick; but from whatever is left, he shail pay 
for her burial expenses, and he shall provide a funeral in 
accordance with his station and his desires. He must return 
the dowry within thirty days if a demand is made for it. 
But if no demand is made for it, the herem shall not take 
effect. In no case shall it take effect unless he fails to 
return it within thirty days after the demand.? 


t This Takkanah is not without precedent in Talmudic law. 
We read in Jer. Ketubot 9.1: R. Jose says, that if one writes in the Ketubah 
‘if the wife should die without children, what is hers shall return to her 
father’, that is a contract in regard to money matters and is therefore 
valid (although it is not in accordance with the law). The passage 
is quoted with slight variations in a responsum of R. Solomon ibn Adret 
(6.254) and in Res. Maim. Ishut 55. 

2 The French custom was that only the wife received dowry from 
her family. In Germany it was customary for the father of the new 
husband as well to contribute to the household of the new couple. 
(Comp. RMP 285, 985, RMC 93, RMR 327, HOS 2, RFL 30, Hagahot 
Mordecat, Ketubot 287). This was due perhaps to the fact that German 
boys married so early (Comp. Res. R. Mordecai Yaffe published in 
Res. R. Meir Lubin, no. 123). Perhaps it was also due in part to the 
custom that developed in Germany of having the young men study 
after their marriage. It was all the more necessary, therefore, that 
they should have some capital with which to do business. It may be 
too that the custom of studying after the marriage was the result of the 
early marriages. However that may be, the result was that in Germany 
it was considered proper for the wife, on the death of the husband, to 
return to the family of her husband half of such goods as he might have 
gotten from them on his marriage, even though that did not leave her 
enough to cover her Ketubah. There must have been cases, of course, 
even in France of husbands receiving large gifts from their families. 
In one such case when the husband died without issue within a year 
after the wedding, his family tried to obtain the return of their gifts. 


CHAPTER IV 167 


2. We have further decreed that the bridegroom shall 
not demand the payment of the uncollected portions of 
the dowry, in case of the death of the wife, even though 
she have lived with him a full year, and even though she 
be survived by a child.* 

3. This ordinance have we accepted upon ourselves, the 
inhabitants of Troyes and Rheims, and we have sent 
messengers to those who were within a day’s journey 
and they rejoiced in the ordinance. We have therefore 
decreed a herem over ourselves and all those who join us, 
and our children, and over all the inhabitants of Isle or 
France, Anjou, Poitiers, Normandy, and those who live 
about these settlements, within the distance of a day or 
two, and over their children to maintain the above decree; 
for who shall enjoy and partake of the gifts of the father 
or of him who gave the woman in marriage, after the death 
of the woman, save the giver? We have seen fit to limit 
the time to one year, for after a year the matter is forgotten 
and the sorrow is not increased because of the loss of the 
money. | 

Jacob b. Meir Isaac b. Baruch Menahem b. Perez 

(After? this I recalled what is taught in Torat Kohanim 
and I gave thanks to God that he saved us from being 
among those who are deservant of rebuke. For we read in 
the chapter of the Punishments, ‘‘and your strength shall 


They invoked the Takkanah of R. Tam. R. Azriel b. Yehiel, who was 
judge, denied that R. Tam could have had such an extraordinary case 
in mind. (Mordecai Kiddushin 551). For the German Jews the matter 
was settled at a synod held under the presidency of R. David of Muenz- 
berg (see p. 58). 

t This section merely established as an ordinance the principle 
which R. Tam regarded as Talmudic law. See Tosafot, Ket. 47a. 

5 As has been stated'in the prefatory note, this section is found 
in the S recension before the signatures. An extended version of it 
is given in C, concluding witn these words from some scribe, ‘‘ Apparently 
these are the words of R. Tam or of one of his pupils.” A shortened 
form of it is found in P, where, too, it is followed by the name of R. Jacob 
b. Meir. It is evident, however, from the text itself, that it is only an 
addition, or a covering note. Furthermore, it appears from Tosafot 
Ket. 47b, that this baraita from the Sifra was originally quoted in dis- 
proof of R. Tam’s statement. 


168 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


be spent in vain’’,tand the Sages apply that verse to one 
who gives his daughter in marriage and gives her a large 
dowry, and then she dies within the wedding week. It then 
appears that this man has lost both his daughter and his 
money. Happy are we that we are no longer subject to 
that evil. Just as we have escaped that evil, so may we 
be saved from all. others, and may we hear good tidings, 
peace for Israel.) 


TEXT C. ABANDONMENT 


The following Takkanah. was first published by Guede- 
mann (I. 263). I have compared the text as there 
printed with that of a copy of it made from the original 
Ms. (Halberstam cod. 49, Hirschfeld 130, fol. 54a), and with 
that given in the responsa collection Binyamin Zeeb 64 (12°). 


TEXT 


21at xb by ombya ory xd) ennynn xbw ovr Sy nm mpn 

spn ipo DppT nix wim yoy pray voy na nyw dip 
p2on> ins ihn 3axnraw wma by) wopay INXT oPYyE UMN 
nap unvn wnvn> wD ox apyn awd pap ard wy 

now Sq 43a b> by orty ANaIon nmN MIN NDDONA WIN 1 
ON °D SUTIN “WY TNOWD TINY OON? OYA ANyTD xdbw invs ox PY 
mapa vyr saw by 

pnanm tind aonwm>d sxvd sds ian xd 6estn swy Anow rd) .2 
comra bw wn 

nanna xd ron) ines nyto xbw maw oxen oon xp xd) .3 
Jos DD) Thu -bD wrxd ym om 7onpyy Mian WS PYyT awd nysaw 
"12 MNO ABN Td Fed) yma mad pw Jux> smywn 
ya) nex ppd 

Own mew moy nynad -poy inimay .4 

7'2°D Sy ox 0D my xd yo ad) map sno Sax 5 

7? meted onone ot piad) iad ooxn nbew win ny 

t Lev. 26.20, and Sifra ad. loc. 

myn 2 2 
DINAVY .2’ 3 
> bis ede 
wan 3" a’ 5 
OT 7, tas 
7 
8 


.Onpy? .2° 
yw .2 





j 


* 


CHAPTER IV 169 


miobndy pomp asd now mp t’a cp Sy yripdh) own mew pp 
<8 'D Mand. wma wD Awd An 

ow. oy pa ond sean po ond mr id w on) .6 

inwxd moby nyt ps on oxxd ony xdow iotsd by wm .7 
ayyay OYSpA mom ANS OwWIN AwwO any aDym xbw mms dy1 
> aDwoOn yD ON 

xd) oN 22 TN ND 2,758) TNA PN op Nd wR? .8 
M02” 

NOW IMAI WDD’ ON MND YNA ANN WDpA MPM WAM 
|p wT up aw 

TON WANS ODIDD UNI NT MMI WAM AMA AINA nN" ‘nD 
psd T'a apy own Sym o> npasaw "man op by 


TRANSLATION 


(Omitting the first paragraph, the text may be rendered 
as follows:) 
1. We have decreed in consonance with a letter which we 
have received from Dreux that no one shall be permitted 
to leave his wife for more than eighteen months? without 
permission of the Court of the nearest city, unless he 
receive the consent of his wife in the presence of proper 
witnesses. 
2. We have permitted the absence of eighteen months 
only to such as leave out of necessity to earn and provided 
the husband is at at peace with his wife. 
3. No one may remain away from his wife against her 
will unless the Court of Seven Elders before whom the 
matter is taken permit the continuance of his stay. The 
Court may give the husband permission to remain absent 
according to the circumstances, for example if he must 
collect his debts or if he is engaged in study or learning to 
write or he is engaged in business. 
4. When the husband returns from his journey he must 

enw ta b> by a1 
apm mda .2 2 


3 In Binyamin Zeeb the reading. is ‘‘twelve months’’. That was 
also the reading of R. Aaron Ha-Kohen of Lunel (See Orhot Hayyim, I 
p. 103). On the other hand R. Isaac of Corbeil (Semak, section 285) 
has the reading ‘‘eighteen months’’. See also the variant readings in 
the codified Takkanot below p. 213. | 


170 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


remain at home for no less than six months before under- 
taking a second journey. 
5. But in no case may one forsake his wife as the result 
of a quarrel or with bitter feelings, but only with the con- 
sent of the Court in the manner described. Each man 
must send his wife the means for her livelihood every 
six months. He must make payment through the Court 
for whatever debts were contracted in his absence in order 
to maintain his family and give his children their education 
in accordance with the law of the Talmud (Ketubot 50a). 
6. One who is able to do so must before leaving on a journey 
give his wife sufficient means for the support of the family.* 
7. We have decreed that no one shail evade the law and 
leave unless he is sincerely attached to his wife, and no 
one may refuse to return home after being summoned 
by the Court of the city in which his wife resides,? or the 
Court of the nearest city, if there is none in that city. 
He must return within six months from the time of the 
call.3 
8. Anyone transgressing this ordinance shall be refused 
hospitality and shall be excommunicated.4 

This decree was enacted ‘‘with a scroll of the Torah and 
the 613 commandments” and it will stand effective if 
aproved by our masters. 

R. Tam wrote that it is a proper decree and in accordance 
with ancient custom and ‘“‘we agree to it in accordance 
with the view of our masters in France.” 


t Ketubot V.7, where the amount one must give one’s wife is fixed. 

2 It is likely that the summons under which Kalonymos b. Kal- 
onymos was recalled from Rome (Mahberet Immanuel 23) was issued 
under a similar *Takkanah. , 

3 Among the responsa of R. Solomon Luria (55) there is one letter 
which he sent to a man urging him to return home. In it he refers 
to the Takkanah as one of R. Gershom’s. I have, however, been un- 
able to find any other source for that ascription. 

4 R. Samson b. Abraham (d. 1215) upbraids a correspondent for 
asking permissior to leave his wife in order to carry out a vow to visit 
the Holy Land. In spite of R. Samson’s devotion to the land of Israel, 
where he ended his days, he felt that the husband ’s first duty was that 
to his wife and while he does not mention this Takkanah he maintains 
the principle it established (Hag. Maim. Shebuot, 8.6). 


CHAPTER V 


CODEC OR. TANRGANG TORS Re LAM 
TEXT A. PRIMARY RECENSIONS 


Just as we have a compilation of Takkanot which is as- 
cribed to R. Gershom (chapter I) so we have a compilation 
of Takkanot ascribed to R. Jacob Tam. There were avail- 
able in the preparation of the texts given below, three 
primary and three secondary recensions of these Takkanot. 
To deal first with the primary recensions, which are printed 
below in parallel columns, both in the Hebrew original and 
the English translation, they are taken from the Munich 
Talmud Manuscript (M. Heb. 3) the Maharil (J. Heb. 1), 
and the Kol Bo (K. Heb. 7). Of the Maharil version we 
have used three texts; 1. that printed O°79M O37 arp; 
2. the Maharil manuscript of the Library of the Jewish 
Theological Seminary; 3. the Bodleian manuscript, Opp. 
225, Neubauer 970. 

It is to be noted that in only one case does a section 
occur in one of the recensions without a corresponding 
section in another. The exception is section 3M which 
corresponds (as can be seen from the text or translation) 
to 1K, but has nothing corresponding to it in J. Thus, 
M and K have fourteen sections each, while J has thirteen 
sections. They are not all in the same order, however, 
as a cursory examination will show. | 

Moreover, there are some sections of the text which 
certainly are not by R. Tam. Thus M1, which prohibits 
the reviling of a repentant convert because of his forced 
conversion is mentioned by Rashi as Takkanah of R. 
Gershom (RFL 21). The Takkanah against renting a 
house from a Gentile after a Jew had been evicted there- 
from is generally ascribed to R. Gershom (See for ex- 
ample, below, p. 305). The herem against reading 


172 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


another’s letters is an ordinance which is popularly believed 
to have been instituted by R. Gershom, witness the formula 
that was used on letters to prevent anyone but the addressee 
from reading them ”77n2 pw “forbidden under the 
herem of R. Gershom’’. While such evidence is not as 
a rule conclusive, it is hardly likely that a Takkanah of 
R. Tam would be ascribed to R. Gershom. A further 
scrutiny of the texts will show that while M1 forbids 
the acceptance of church vessels from Gentiles as security 
for debt, the corresponding section in J (7) and in K (11) 
forbids rather the buying of such vessels. It would thus 
appear that the original text from which the three before 
us are sprung contained no paragraph dealing with church 
vessels. 3 

It will be noticed too that the variations in the order 
of the Takkanot in the various texts are caused by the 
irregular insertion of the paragraphs just mentioned. 
Without them there would be left ten sections (J having 
only nine) arranged in precisely the same order. They 
would be as follows: 


a. Right of jurisdiction. 

b. Exceptions to the herem against compulsory divorce. 
c. Interruption of the prayers. 

d. Transgressing the herem of a Court. 

e. Giving the “‘tithes’’. 

f. Not to remove a Tallit or Mahzor. 

g. Not to strike one’s neighbor. 

h. Not to cut the margin of a book. 

i. The law of summons. 

j. Providing for abandoned wives. 


It will be seen that as far as form is concerned, the compi- 
lation as we have reduced it would fall into three parts: 
Part I, (sections a-e), dealing with various communal 
matters and arranged more or less in the order of the first 
sections of the Takkanot of R. Gershom, as we wil! see 
presently. Part II, (sections f, g, and h) various prohibi- 
tions. Part III, remaining sections i and j. If we accept 
the theory that the four sections not included in this list 








CHAPTER V 173 


are interpolations, we will find corroboration for our view 
in the fact that they were inserted in practically every case 
before one of the subdivisions. 


The four interpolated sections are: 


k. regarding apostates. 

l. regarding the renting of houses from Gentiles. 

m. regarding Gentile holy vessels. 

n. regarding the reading of other people’s letters. 


In M, & and / are inserted as sections 1 and 2 before 
Part I, while m and u, are inserted as sections 11 and 12 
before Part III. 


In J, 2 and x form sections 1 and 2, being inserted before 
Part I, while m is inserted as section 7 before Part II, 
and k, as section 11 before Part III. 


In K, section k, m and 1 are inserted before Part III. 
The insertion of / as section 4, may perhaps be accounted 
for on the ground that the writer thought it in some manner 
connected with the matter of defamation. 


It is of course peculiar that the four paragraphs inserted 
into the three texts should be so nearly identical. Yet 
the above arguments, that the excision of the four para- 
graphs which are suspicious on other grounds would leave 
a basic text which is practically the same in the three 
versions, seems convincing. The original Takkanot of 
R. Tam were then ten in number, and those marked a, b, 
c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, in the text printed below. 

There are several conjectures regarding these ten Tak- 
kanot which are.offered with diffidence since they rest on 
no certain proof. It is, nevertheless, thought best to pre- 
sent them. 

It should be noticed that the arrangement of the Takkanot 
in the first part is peculiarly reminiscent of the order of 
the paragraphs in the Takkanot of R. Gershom (above 
chapter I). If we assume that the paragraph regarding 
the herem against bigamy was introduced into that text 
before the time of R. Tam, the two lists are all but parallel 
for the first six Takkanot. 


174 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


TAKKANOT 
of R. Gershom _ of R. Tam 


1. Jurisdiction of the Court. Jurisdiction of the Court. 

2. Release of the herem a- Exception to the herem 

gainst bigamy. against compuslory di- 
vorce. 


3. Interruption of Prayers. Interruption of Prayers (and 
defamation). 


4. Letting out a synagogue. 


5. Proclaiming herem to ob- Compelling all to obey he- 
tain lost article. rem. 


6. Ordinances for the poor Giving of the tithes for the 
and other ordinances. poor. 


If we accept this as a true parallelism, there can be no 
doubt that R.Tam framed his ordinances on the basis of 
those of R. Gershom. It will then corroborate our view 
expressed above (p. 144) that the section regarding the re- 
lease of the herem against bigamy is of French origin and 
was later inserted there into the Takkanot of R. Gershom. 
For in France this section was known before the time of 
R. Tam, while the German synod sitting at Mayence 
some time after 1220, did not yet have it in its text. 

Moreover, we may conclude from the fact that R. Tam 
arranged the compilation of his synod in ten sections, 
that he had the example of R. Gershom before him in that 
as well. Perhaps he considered section 8 and 9 of the 
Takkanot of R. Gershom a unit, and therefore counted 
ten including the spurious section regarding bigamy. 

The particular ascription of one Takkanah to R. Tam 
in J and K (sections 9 and 8 respectively) cannot militate 
against the genuineness of the ascription of the whole 
text to the scholar, since he is not mentioned in the cor- 
responding section of M (9). The reason that particular 
mention is made in J and K of the authorship of this sec- 
tion is that it was not generally acted upon by judges. 
The scribe was led to emphasize its authorship, so as 
to give it greater authority. 





CHAPTER V 175 


While M is here, as in the Takkanot of R. Gershom, the 
oldest source it is not free from accretions. The four 
inserted paragraphs are found in it as well as in the other 
texts. Moreover, section 14 shows evidence of no longer 
being in its original state. It was intended doubtless as 
legislation concerning men who abandoned their wives, 
and is supplementary to the famous Takkanah of R. Tam 
against abandonment, (See above chapter IV, Text C, p. 167). 
But later a provision was added extending its effect to 
compel the husband to support his wife when he was in 
the city. 

The relation of the various recensions cannot be estab- 
lished with any degree of certainty on the basis of the material 
at present available. None of the texts before us is a direct 
copy of either of the others. Moreover each has developed 
in its own way, so that their relationship to one another 
is obscured. The original from which they all are derived 
cannot have contained the four additional sections, k, 
l, m, n, since it is the position of these very sections in the 
respective compilations that mark their greatest difference. 
On the other hand, it is strange that the three of them 
should be independently have made the same additions. 
Thus a number of questions regarding these texts must for 
the present remain unanswered. 


TEXTS 


Syn wad wbdvn .10 
yw. Wyo Aawn 


xbw mupna oi .4 

sw ma on nov 
sy nw xba an 12 
ams mw > omxdp 


Syn wad dun 14 
ImMyo mawn 


orn 15 impp Thy .1 

1281 77 ONY OND TP 
I oToNva oo mao 
PyOY TI pr 2rPsw3 


S) 

apy’ wan npn ibs 
D’n a7 NIpw 

wes vomd> xby 4 
sawn Syab 

ma vownd xbw .o 
sy m2 97 Osnww on 
Dn mw 


PTD (2)NNSD3 .aT 1 
MVIWI .aI 2 


176 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


iT 


5 9907 TDN NN’? 
arDww minpa *> ww 
onan ionn xdi nD 
sos ond) ona 
agi si a> xbnos 
Sn sai niyyowma mind 
mw NDwa mM 
PR aNVA IW May 

O07 mipn ma 


> ody ONIN) «1 
ow mm Dw opp 
mo opya Sim oN 
7’aD DIN w KNoONDD 
2 ams pM 


mwr>d 0) ]N] ON) .2 
wNT oNvn oop bya 
bi 4m) pray IPN) Tw» 
b> diop N¥ON ANS AW 
bya md md) mmd 
an 


1D OINT NY ON) 23 
bi? mx IMS ww>> 
nava |x) mm bvad 
prob my» ayo 
imism> pia pwn 
mo a> oon na 
~ym nw p> ‘oxy 
% wy ond my On 
xd wpbp rn pop 
1'29 7bs8 7K 


I 


jawrsmws Xba sw 
SNS mon mw ay 
M2 WIND JANI Nw 
bax 12 aa NpYT 

jos Ssw maa 


xoy onnn Ty .3 
bya onUS ON wa 
mwan Toy oN) ANN 
ws 4mNwn om dys 
pray xqp xd 


NOW DIN NT ON .4 
emxioa ospyby arwd> 
ayy nbpn Suad dia 
> mwyw ay mmo 
noa msn dion ps 
0 15BS ‘ow ON 
D> TONY md yn 
sion xd1 p50 Swinn 
12> qbs 


= 


37 72 Tw DPD 23 

xonod onpo bora 

pT oma on o w 
ow pn 


NWS WW OTN .4 
wx oxwn oni Sya 
IPIAy NPI WN Ww 
sxon mx vam jn 
mwyd) aaind by>> dyob 
ann bya 


1D NNW ON .5 
apy>5 yp? amr» 
FAN) AXP) ow nbpn 
pT wyw ay nawa 
pwdon craam> dio" 
mo.1o tox orn nd2 
Swnion bs TDR 


mona xdbv war 3 


JIY NPI WN NOD WNT 'RVN .at 4 


JMS .3t 5 


pypw pre noon Sy pyoxa px nyt TIN. ON ap IN TP Aw mond 7D) .ar 6 
nono ow ww ywoin by Senna my pe Seid ratow prim 4s iwebdaw conn by 


ss 
pooon .at7 


it 
by moan rym .5 


praya mom va 
xbwo omnyon = qpn> 
sano 


sand onna pi" .¢ 
asian ma bs swynn 
vIn ya apyy pr 


ms oomaD oan) 
~ya pw ox obo 
Tr om xb pt 


bapy ob> nsx mann 
ow> 95 pry oni apt 
b> ya wes pdiya 
xO as ons mond 

ORD PP 


my sxaind wou .7 
noi map TIN oN 
.ooyn mw xba 


now mnoqp Onn .8 

 pyna an mond 
mony onp onnn 
bapw mio by mwya 
s’a nx mwyd poy 
by) wy md ON 
IPM Vy aw Dw 
Wt aon ey ns 
maa wom. wt 'n 
MDM Dw 7M NDA 
TWN) AMID TAN DD 


CHAPTER V 


T 
monn Sy aay 45 


mao pa oma by 


9m) pnb sprnayn 


Jonna 1a’ xb anpbn 


Sy WYDT 10IN'DT 6 
saw anx> son ma 
> pRw om .Pya won 
SOs maa yal d nny 
ons moon ishi> 
ox amp xdwy taba 


omy nexy xdwy .g 
map am ww omby 
Syn muna xow non 
arpa 
yoy ondqp on .9 
aperyice voneela) | alate be 
Twyl mw) NTw OTN 
Diyala pS 
% mwyds yoy Sand 
by n'a ypm 147’2 
yn sn = 
ICANT eT 
Pectin) al Coat fh Ga ge 
nD os 7” nrow> 
S28 an ADD ANN 


177 


a 
morn dy sayT .6 


paya mond parma 
jpn? 


svamd onna pion .7 
sin7 ma bs swynn 
SS Wars oleae 
pnd pw Pym wIKN 
peasy ompIx mwy> 
mwy> ofa wy OMS 
ww xbw sada apts 
ION) 22 


moby runs why og 
sow noi may NN) 
.o>yan mwa 


man mond xbw .9 

1 pnd pS D7 ox 
roy Sap iw ayy oy 
bre chy nn cme yd 
mon Dip pa Mma cnn 
pars ‘wom "wy wan 
owon nolo nan 
D8 Tas DM NN ON) 
pamnp) oow impr 
boa) mr 4272 ODN) 
bya pRw myyp) 727 


payin a 8 


snoop mond o2 .at 9 


wand war 10 
wd war it 

wv at 12 
dys var 13 


“YY AW YY MINT W uP 14 


Le nave dope aL 


178 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


iT 


52357 7 PON] AMP 
ow pxw muvp Soa 7D) 
nyo oy nad OwIN 
“DD }D) OINND 7373 
poy "3ON) TWD FN 
ony ov pry Dd 

.podrws 


>. yrapd xdwi .9 
snno> 75D 


yar mpd sbwr 11 

on 8 ayn Ww 

m>Dn DD IW DNS 
Pew) may 


anda mynd xbv.12 
xb. and ons nbwy 
onws xb inyep 


ow =nmpm 13 

p71 wyw mnoap 
mapa oyyn nema 
qo5  stwxr hy 
xd Syma and pind 
by) pind Epp 
mo 9y myo tarsind 
(muorm Sx) Ayom 
mary ‘yo nnxd qdw 
3M ON) 7D OY WY 
ox) awnd 195» apa 


tH 

1629p) AWN) IMT 
1) at a7 by oN: 
paw movp i7mat boa 
sa72 oy nya mo 
SIN) Ww yD) wi 
1S ODN) 18ND 
ov mm Nb iopwhraw 

ony 


>. sann? xdw .10 
yby 20n1n0> DD 


nan nd xbw .7 

on. mDym ysl 
ry mbpn 7pp) ON 
Mop own mwnw 51 


Dn ww WIN .2 
map> sby onoap 
Syn 2inmwi xba ‘nd 

223d 


ON IpA mpn .10 
vyl mom wyw 
s> xby yaind mapa 
sbi pinnod dit and 
meys awn ano 

mom 


a 
ID) oy ow nr 
PION] TWIND FINI TDD? 
ov yo xd onnw poy 
poorws ony 


da. yinpd dw .10 
by ains> Ds ADD 


by nnbnd xbw .11 
a1 may cwnwn 52 


ano mynd xby .12 
an 


nodo> pax ps .13 

by and apinn ya 
mapa oo pyaoNds 
sbw mymm yaind 
mary wove nord 
[OM] ov ew MD0DF 
awn ov w OND PT Ms 
wom anno xd amp 
nnxb Sw = maomm 
moon my wow 
mown awn yan ox 


.2)7) IN .3? 16 
wum> war 17 


.O°9N] WIND TOW 7D) .ar 18 
omy ov yn podmvow .ar 19 


sanad AS 
mera xdbw 
“IMD pT ON) 


ea? 21 
eat 22 


rT 
awnn ano 15s >"x) 
Ps oN mom mwyd 
TONIows awa yan 
ws mom basa 


Inwmi Pysa Syn .14 

WR oN mom ndxw 
by onn abo ya 
py dwn oytn 
mina 71> ppb y7pp 
bapw jaw boi ids Sy 


ow) won) «obyan 
Syan mma nupnn 
s75) nays monn 

m0 
. M 


These are the Tak- 
kanot of R. Jacob 


who is called R. 
Tam, 
Rk. 15 Not! to men- 


‘tion his sin to a 
repentant.? 


CHAPTER V 


T 


)Y2 NIT 230781 13 
IN MM NwpzD InwN) 
~ya mbya ps [DN 
b> by orn dun qos 
py) ovo oyt 
m9 "2 \pDaN pIPs 
wow mo Sy min 
pan byan bapw w'n 
a7 ww mon 


TRANSLATIONS 


J 


11. Not to put a re- 
pentant to shame be 
cause of his sins. 


179 

aa 
"oy? Oy wD JON 
Avomw 


Y2 OTN PRON) 14 
INV! YD NIT ON 
Sy worm mn nyain 
Wp AS oytrd 55 
mm md ypoD 


10. Not to put a re- 
pentant toshame be- 
cause of his sins. 


ton »yom 55 war 23 


t This Takkanah is mentioned by Rashi, the grandfather of R. 


Tam, as being one of the ordinances of R. Gershom (RFL 21). 


This 


disposes of the genuineness of its ascription to R. Tam. But as we 
have seen in the preface to these Takkanot, the section is in all likeli- 
hood a later interpolation of an early Takkanah into a compilation of 
R. Tam. The fact that the language of M differs from that of J and K 
also tends to show that the Takkanah was inserted into the various 
texts at different times. 

2 Compare also Takkanot Shum, section 23 below p. 230. It will be 
seen that the main difference between the ordinance before us and that 
of the Rhine communities is this: theirs deals with reviling a person 
because of alleged low birth; the one before us, with referring to a man’s 
conversion after his return to the fold. The two are not to be confused. 
The Takkanah against calling one a bastard is nowhere ascribed to R. 


180 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Gershom. It is a ‘‘custom of the ancients’’, a herem, a Takkanah, 
but never, at least in early sources, an ordinance of R. Gershom. I 
find no reference to such a Takkanah in French sources. ‘It seems to 
have been a special ordinance of the Rhine communities. That is 
what we would naturally understand from the statement in Or Zarua 
(quoted RMB p. 72) that it was ‘‘the ancients in the Rhine communi- 
ties that said there is a herem against the slander of the dead’’. This 
refers to an allegation of illegitimate birth, since it involves moral tur- 
pitude on the part of the deceased. It seems indeed tha R. Isaac Or 
Zarua knew of no other herem in regard to slander. For we read ina 
responsum of his (Or Zarua I. 751) that ‘‘regarding a person who says 
to another ‘You deny the resurrection’, or ‘You area rebel against the 
whold Torah’, even in this case have I heard of no herem; for there is 
only a herem against slander affecting one’s birth as when one calls 
another ‘bastard’, or ‘slave’’’. This passage need not preclude the 
existence of a herem against calling someone ‘‘Convert”. But that 
interpretation must be set aside in view of the information that we have 
from his grandson, R. Isaac b. R. Hayyim Or Zarua (Res. 69). He 
says, ‘‘For thus did my grandfather of blessed memory, write: there is 
no herem except in matters involving defects of birth; but if one accuses 
another of denying the resurrection or of being a convert, there is no 
herem; for that does not imply any aspersion on the legitimacy of his 
children, except that they are disgraced by being the children of a 
convert, 


It is clear than that the objection against attacking the legitimacy of 
someone’s birth was twofold. First it implied a sin on the part of those 
that had departed. Second it involved disgrace on generations yet 
unborn. R. Meir b. Baruch tended to emphasize rather the first 
aspect of the matter (RMP 132, Mord. Baba Kamma 8.105), R. Isaac 
Or Zarua emphasized the second. 


Far different from these was the Takkanah of R. Gershom which 
we have before us, and of which, as we have seen, R. Isaac Or Zarua 
knew nothing. It forbade the reviling of a repentant convert because 
of his former sins. Therein it but followed the law of the Mishna 
(Baba Mezia 4.9). But the importance of the Takkanah was that it 
was no longer a moral maxim as in the days of the Mishna but an es- 
sential for the proper continuance of Jewish life. For there were among 
the Jews, many who had forcibly been torn away from the fold. If 
they were made to feel that their forced conversion to Christianity 
had placed them forever in an inferior position in the camp of Israel, 
many would naturally be led to remain with the majority and be lost 
to their people. R. Gershom, therefore not merely out of humanitarian 
considerations but because of the welfare of Israel forbade the mention 
of their sin to these unfortunates, The ordinance is widely quoted, 
see RFL 21, Hagahot Mordecai, Baba Kamma 8.21, Yam shel Shelomo, 
Baba Kamma 8.55. 


* ‘ 
. Te: 
i 


M 


1. 2. Not to rent? 
for a whole year the 
house of a Gentile 
in which a Jew has 
lived (after the re- 
moval of the Jew’). 


CHAPTER V 


J 

1. We have further 
received a herem of 
the ancients that if 
a Jew lives in the 
house of a Gentile 
whether for rent or 
as loan, no other 
Jew may rent the 
house for a whole 
year after the first 
Jew’s removal from 
the house. ‘This or- 
dinance applies only 
to the house owned 
by a Gentile but not 
to that owned by a 
Jew. 


181 


K 


4. It is also one 
of the Takkanot that 
one may not hire 
from a Gentile a 
housein whicha Jew 
has lived until a 
year has passed after 
his removal. If the 
(former Jewish) ten- 
ant said to the Gen- 
tile, “ Rent the house 
to me for less than 
I have been paying,” 
and the houses have 
not become cheaper 
and he gives no rea- 
son for desiring to 
decrease the rental 
and another came 
and hired the house 
for the same rental 
as was paid the past 
year or more, there 
is no herem in the 
matter. 


* The expression here used for renting (wn) is grammatically 


wrong. We should expect the Qal rather than the Hiphil or Causative. 
But the Hebrew of the text before us is not above reproach. The use 
of the Causative for the Simple verb is usual in the responsa of R. 
Benjamin b. Mattathias(lived at Arta, first half of the sixteenth century.) 
Indeed he quoted our ordinance with that grammatical inaccuracy 
(Res. 404). 

2 The economic importance of this Takkanah has been studied in 
Part I. p. 31. The refinements introduced by the later compilers 
are at least not repugnant to the spirit of the Takkanah. In PD the 
Takkanah is extended to forbid the hiring of houses which had been 
loaned to a fellow-Jew without pay. The second Jew is not forbidden 
to accept a loan of the house on the same terms as his predecessor. 
That would not help the former tenant and would not harm the owner. 
To refuse it would merely mean a vain sacrifice on the part of the second 
Jew. That is also the view taken by R. Meir b. Baruch (RMP 661). 


182 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


M 


a.3.Intaplacewhere 
a great Rabbi lived 
in former times we 
may assume the exis- 
tence of a herem 
Beth Din and one 
must stand for trial 
there. 


b.4. Ifamandivorces 
his wife against her 
will and she marries 
thereafter, he is free 
and is not called a 


J 


3. Furthermore did 
he ordain that no 
man shall divorce 
his wife against her 
will’; if one did di- 


K 
1. The “great schol- 


ars” say that any 
placewhich is known 
to have been the 
habitation of a great 
man may beassumed 
to have the herem 
Beth Din and one 


must so regard it. 


2. If a man gives a 
writ of divorce to a 
woman against her 
will and she is then 
married again, the 


* This section is mentioned in K in the name of ‘‘the great scholars’’. 
In the secondary recensions (P and L) printed below, it is given in the 
name of the ‘‘Rabbis of France.’’ The law of jurisdiction here laid 
down, had an interesting development both in the Talmud and in 
Post-Talmudic writings, regarding which see Additional Note on page 
379. 

2 This Takkanah against compulsory divorce is added in J, but 
it is quite unnecessary since we are dealing here only with ordinances 
of R. Tam and not with those of R. Gershom. In the secondary re- 
censions (below p. 193) the statement is added that if the writ was 
delivered against the will of the wife ‘‘it is nothing’. Just what is 
meant by this expression is not clear, since in the very next sentence 
we are told that if the wife marries the husband is free from guilt. 
The reason inserted by the writer of L and PD is that by her marriage 
the wife has shown that she accepted the divorce willingly. This is 
evidently a fiction and can only be upheld as such. For it is obvious 
that while a woman may have received her writ of divorce quite un- 
willingly, months or perhaps years of separation may have made her 
resigned to the inevitable. The phrase probably means that the writ 
is without force in that is does not permit the husband to marry a second 
time so long as the woman remains unmarried. The question of the 
power of a Court to annul bills of divorce and marriage does not arise 
here at all. As is well known that formed the subject of a famous 
controversy between R. Joseph Colon and R. Moses Capsali. R. 
Joseph held that while the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem did have the right 





M 


;‘transgressor”. If 
he gave her a writ 
of divorce with her 
consent and it is 
found to be invalid 
he may divorce her 
against her will.? 


c. 5. Ifa man appre- 
hends that he will be 
defamed to the gov- 
ernment, he may in- 
terrupt the prayers of 


CHAPTER V 


J 


* vorce his wife against 


her will, and then 
she was married, he 
is no longer to be 
regarded a_ trans- 
gressor. 


4. If a man appre- 
hends that he will 
be defamed shortly 
he may interrupt the 
morning (Yozer) 


183 


K 


husband is free and 
is not a transgressor. 
If he gave her the 
writ with her con- 
sent and it is found 
unfit (legally) hemay 
divorce her against 
her will. 


3. Ifa person appre- 
hends that he will 
be defamed shortly, 
hemay interrupt the 
afternoon prayers 


to annul marriages no such right inheres in modern courts. In this 
claim he was successful against R. Moses Capsali who, following good 
Spanish precedent, attempted to declare marriages that were contracted 
otherwise than in accordance with the local ordinance, invalid. That 
matter is not at all involved here. There is no question that the writ 
had full validity insofar as the wife was concerned; it was void merely 
to the extent that the husband was not released by it. R. Moses Mintz 
did not so understand the text before us, and he comes to the conclusion 
that the writ of divorce is actually invalid. He does not rely on that 
interpretation, however, to interfere with the ordinary processes of 
the marriage law. (Res. R. Moses Mintz, 17). 

t This is not the only exception to the working of the Takkanah 
against compulsory divorce. In Austria, at least, it was customary 
for men to deposit in Court writs of divorce for their wives if the latter 
forsook the Jewish fold (Isserlein, Pesakim 256). In such cases the 
consent of the wife was not required. Nor was it required, according 
to R. Meir in the special case discussed by him (RMR 245). Similarly 
it is assumed by R. Simon of Joinville that if a person warned his wife 
not to have any dealings with a third party and she disobeyed, she 
might be compelled to accept divorce. For according to Rabbinic 
law further continuance of married life would be impossible under 
the conditions. Since tne ordeal of the Sotah (Numbers, 5.24) had 
been abolished there was no remedy for the husband but divorce. 
(Tosafot Nedarim 90b, Hagahot Maim. Ishut 24.10, RMP 587, Hagahot 
Asheri Kiddushin 3.16). The opinion is however expressed that even 
in such a case the herem of R. Gershom holds and the husband may 
not divorce the wife (Semak 198, Orhot Hayyim, II. p. 98). 


184 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


M 


the afternoon or the 
morning (Yozer), 
even on the Sab- 
bath, until they do 
him justice;? one 
may announce a 
herem compelling 
the defamer to re- 
veal to him? what 
he said to the ruler. 


if 


andafternoon pray- 
ers until justice is 
donehim. Onemay 
announce a herem 
compelling (the de- 
famer) to repeat be- 
fore the elders of 
the city what he 
said co the ruler. 


K 


even on the Sabbath 
until justice is done 
him. One may an- 
nounce a herem to 
compel the defamer 
to repeat what he 
said before the elders 
of the city. If in 
their opinion it is 
his duty to indem- 
nify the defamed, 
he shall immediately 
indemnify him, and 
not take the matter 


to Court. 


* The expression ]"1 mvy is equivalent to the Biblical yawn ney 
regarding which see Ginzberg, Eine Unbekannte Juédische Sekte, p. 4. 
It means that the executive authority carries out justice between 
two litigants. In the same sense we have the Aramaic NY “ay 
In K we read po 15 nvyw ay. Unless that is to be corrected into “[y 
y11> wyw, we must assume that the meaning there is different from 
the ordinary. Whatever may be true in regard to the meaning of the 
expression in K, it is certain that in the German texts it means to ‘‘give 
satisfaction’’, ‘‘to do justice’’ in the sense in which the idiom is used 
in English and generally in modern languages. In that sense the 
expression is used in Takkanot Shum section 3, text R. (below p. 226) and 
numberless times in the responsa literature. I mention here amost at 
random Maaseh Ha-Geonim, 80; Raben Sanhedrin 13; HOS 248, RMR 
334. Finally the expression assumed also a derived meaning, namely 
“doing penance’’. It has this significance in Takkanot Shum (loc. cit.) 
Text Z, as well as in Or Zarua I, iiv where we read in regard to a 
repentant sinner, 7 ow wy xdv »”yx Dl px NIT In MaWwns aw ox Sax 
“but if he repented he is already a righteous man, although he did as 
yet no penance”’, 

2 As it is generally quoted the ordinance provides that the suspected 
defamer shall declare in the presence of the Gentile to whom he is ac- 
cused of having made the denunciation, that he made no denunciation. 
It was assumed that even if he had given information, the Gentile would 
perceive how little trust could be put on his words. This law is thus 
stated in the name of R. Tam (Or Zarua, Baba Kamma 10; RMP 383; 
Agudah, Baba Kamma 10). The original Takkanah seems to have 
been that the informer should tell his victim what he had told the rul- 








M 


d. 6. Ift one trans- 
gresses a herem Beth 
Din, he should be 
compelled to make 
amends. 


e. 7. To} come under 
the herem to “‘bring 
the tithe to the 


CHAPTER V 


J 


5. Ifonetransgresses 
a herem, it is the 
duty of the Court 
to compel him to 
makeamends. Nei- 
ther may one re- 
fuse to enter a her- 
em.? 


6. “To bring the 
tithe to the treasure 
house” one need 


K 


5. If one trans- 
eresses a herem, the 
Court should compel 
the transgressor to 
mend his perver- 
sity, and not to be 
obstinate. 


6. To come under 
the herem to “bring 
the tithe to the 


ing power, so that the victim might plan his defence accordingly. In 
J and K it is said that this statement must be made before the elder 
of the city. The thought there is that they will then know what action 
to take. 

t The original reading was doubtless to the effect that, “if one 
transgress the herem, the Court isempowered to compel the transgressor 
to make amends.”’ It referred to the declaration of a private herem, 
such as that regarding lost property, etc. in which there is possibility 
of naming amends. The misplacing of the word by before the word mnin 
produced the confusion. 

2 Even a cursory comparison of the Hebrew texts will show how 
the confusion resulting in this additional paragraph arose. 

3 It is doubtful whether Maaser means actually a tithe or simply 
the regular percentage given tocharity. The word is taken of course 
from the verse quoted. The Talmudic law provides that one must 
contribute to the food collection as soon as one has resided in a city 
for thirty days, to the charity fund after ninety days and so forth. 
In Germany and France it appears that the charity fund was collected 
by the announcement of a herem against all who would fail to contri- 
bute their full allotment. This is the herem referred to in the Tak- 
kanah. We read in L-P, that before the time of ‘‘R. Gershom there 
~was a Takkanah and R. Gershom ordained that it be renewed each year”’ 
(See above p. 18). Whether we accept or reject the emendation in L 
that before the time of R. Gershom the charity tax was one twentieth, 
it is certain that at other times the tax was not fully one tenth. R. 
Moses Mintz placed the tax at Mayence at one fortieth (Res. 40). 
We learn thence, too, that the tax at least in his time and place was 
payable in monthly instalments and that is was customary later to 
go about with a closed box into which each one deposited what he 
thought was one fortieth of his income for the month. From the 


186 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


M 


treasure house’’? 
one must be but one 
month in the city. 
Members cf a com- 
munity who cannot 
give charity may 
compel others who 
can afford to give, 
provided they (those 
who cannot give) are 
not appointed treas- 
urers of the funds. 


f. 8. Not? to take a 
Talliit or Mahzor 
from a Synagogue 
without the permiss- 
ion of the owner. 


J 


have been but one 
month in the city. 
One who is unable 
to share in the bur- 
den of the city may 


compel others (to 


give) but he must 
not be a treasurer. 


8. No person shall 
remove a Zallit or 
Mahzor from a syna- 
gogue without the 
permission of the 
owner. 


i 


treasure house”’ one 
need have been in 
the city but one 
month. If there is 
a minyan in the city, 
one man may com- 
pel all, but that in- 
dividual must not 
be a recipient of 
charity. One who 
cannot afford to par- 
take in the burdens 
of acommunity may 
compel others to 
give but he must 
not be a treasurer. 


7. Not toremovea 
Mahzor or a Tallit 
from a synagogue 
except by  permis- 
sion of the owner. 


expression “to bring the tithe into the treasure house’’ we would assume 
that in earlier times it was rather customary to bring the money to 


the treasury. 


t Malachi 3.10. 


2 This is of course not to be understood as an ordinance against 
stealing. There was no need of a communal ordinance for that. It 


is rather a limitation on the Rabbinic principle that “‘one wants to 
have one’s property used in the fulfilment of a Mitzvah’’. (Baba Kam- 
ma 29b). This was generally assumed to give one the right of using the 
property of another in such a case. Thus for instance, there could be 
no possibility of anyone objecting to the use of his Tallit by another 
Jew in praying. It woud not be well, however, to allow one to remove 
it from the synagogue for the borrower might forget to return it. In 
a responsum in which the principle is involved (RMP 723) there is no 
mention of the Takkanah. 





M 


g. 9. Not to strike 
one’sneighbor. Ifone 
did strike another, no 
release is to be gran- 
ted him until he per- 
forms or agrees to 
perform the decree 
of the Court. The 
fineof onewhostrikes 
another shall be 
twenty-five? dinars 
and if the quarrel 
occurred in the 
Synagogue, fifty 
dinars. If the as- 
sailed turned and 
struck the assailant 
he loses his rights. 


CHAPTER V 


J 


9. There is a herem 
of ancients not to 
strike one’s neigh- 
bor. Onewhostrikes 
another must be re- 
leased from the her- 
em before he can be 
counted fora minyan 
on condition that he 
should undertake to 
go before a Court. 
R. Tam ordained 
that he who strikes 
hisneighborshall pay 
him twenty-five din- 
ars and if he struck 
himinthesynagogue 
fifty dinars. If the 


187 


K 


8. Thereisan ancient 
herem not to strike 
one’sneighbor. The 
herem must be re- 
leased before he can 
be counted for a 
minyanonly oncon- 
dition that he under- 
take to carry out 
the order of theCourt 
or whatever fine the 
elders of the city 
will place on him. 
R. Tam_ ordained 
that one who strikes 
his neighbor shall 
pay twenty-five din- 
ars and if he struck 


t This passage can be best understood in the light of a state- 


ment by R. Eliezer b. Nathan (Raben, Prague, 113d, quoted RMB 
96, cf. RMP. 382). He decides that if ‘‘one raises his hand against 
one’s neighbor he is called Rasha’, (wicked), and if he is summoned 
to Court (by his assailant) the Court declares him a Rasha.”’. Even 
if the assailed make no complaint in Court, the assailant is still to be 
considered a Rasha’ and therefore unfit to take an oath. So that if 
the assailant is a litigant in a Court ‘action, his opponent may dis- 
qualify him from taking an oath, by bringing witnesses to prove him 
guilty of assault. The opponent would then take the oath and gain 
the decision in his favor. 

On the basis of these words we can understand the provision that 
‘if one strikes one’s neighbor one is not to be counted as a member of 
minyan until one has agreed to abide by the decision of the Court. 
This herem, unlike the others, takes effect not after conviction by the 
Court, but immediately on committing the crime. P adds the pro- 
vision that if the assailed make no complaint the Community may 
release the herem without satisfaction on the part of the assailant. 


2 This attempt of R. Tam to set up a fixed schedule of fines did 
not succeed. See below p. 194. Yet we learn from P that R. Yehiel 
decided in accordance with the ordinance of R. Tam, and it is some- 
what surprising not to find it mentioned in the codes. 


188 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 
M J K 
Women! and rela- assailed person re- himinthesynagogue 
tives are acceptedas turns the blow, he fifty dinars. If the 


witnesses in this case 
and in any matter of 
contention where it 
is not usual that 
witnesses should be 
present. Similarly 
for one accused of 
defamation they are 
accepted, even 
though they give 
only circumstantial 
evidence since there 
could not possibly be 
witness present when 
the denunciation was 
made. 


h.10. Nottotear the 
margin of a book 
even in order to 
write on it.? 


11. Not to accept 
Church vessels as se- 
curity for debt. 


loses hisrights. Wo- 
men andrelativesare 
accepted as witnesses 
in this case and simi- 
larly in every conten- 
tion, where it is un- 
usual for witnesses 
to be present. Simi- 
larly in the case of 
defamation,even one 
who testifies from 
hearsay, is accepted 
since when the de- 
nunciation was made 
no witnesses could 
have been present. 


10. Not to cut the 
margin of a book to 
write on it. 


7. Not to buy a 
stolen chalice or 
cross or holy vest- 


assailed returns the 
blow, he loses his 
rights. Women and 
relatives ‘are accep- 
ted as witnesses in 
this matter, or inany 
contention where no 
men are on hand 
as witnesses, the 
matter having occur- 
redsuddenly. Simi- 
larly one guilty of 
giving information 
or even an apostate 
is to be accepted 
as witness. since 
there were no wit- 
nesses present when 
the denunciation 
was made. 


9. And not to cut 
the margin of a book 
to write on it. 


11. Not to buy the 
chalice or the cross 
or holy vestments 


* R. Joseph Colon quotes this ordinance in two varying versions 
in a responsum (180). His texts seem to resemble K and P most closely. 
Recanate (494) ascribes this law to R. Tam, perhaps because he found 
it in this or a similar text ascribed to R. T. 

2 It was customary to cut the margins of books and to use the 
vellum thus obtained for writing Mezuzot, Tephilin or charms. The 
practice had to be discouraged for often the writing would be cut as 


well as the margin. 


3 The practice of lending money to Gentiles, especially clergymen, 


_— Se Pe 





e. 12. Not? to read 
another’s letters. 


13. One need not go 
to a distant city 
to a great rabbi, 


CHAPTER V 


J 


ments or prayer 
books of a Church 
or any of its vessels 
because of the peril. 


He says (?) there 
is a herem of the an- 


‘cients, against read- 


ing a letter without 
the permission of the 
writer. 


12a Thereis/a: lak 
kanahoftheancients 
that a summons 


189 


K 


or prayer book of a 
church or its vessels. 


12. Not to read a 
letter which a man 
sends to his fellow 
except with his 
knowledge and _ per- 
mission. 


13° There isa’ Tak- 
kanahand an ancient 
herem that autiti- 


on a pledge of their sacred vessels and vestments was widespread and 
at times brought the Jews into serious peril, as is implied in this 
Takkanah. Comp. Carlebach, Jued. Gemeinden, 43, 44. Also Gude- 
mann, I, 24, 130. In the Mishna (Abvda Zara 4.2) the practice was 
prohibited. For the vessel did not, on coming into the hands of the 
Jew, lose its religious character. It might not be used. The only 
question which could arise would then be what vessels are used so 
intimately in worship as to be prohibited. In our text there is no 
specification of the kind of vessels that are forbidden. But in the others 
(K and L-P) mention is made of the chalice, the vestments, and books. 
It is possible with R. Eliezer of Metz (Sefer Yereim 70 and 74) to dis- 
tinguish between buying vessels and accepting them as pledges. But 
while it is possible that zeal for the law prompted our ordinance in 
part, we read in the other three texts frank statements that the main 
cause is the fear of Gentile indignation. So that while R. Eliezer b. 
Nathan permits from the point of view of law, the lending of money 
against such vessels and articles as collateral (Raben 289, 290) and there 
is a tendency to be lenient among all the authorities, (See Tosafot 
Aboda Zara, 50a, Asheri ad loc., Mordecai, Aboda Zara chap. 4, beg.) 
yet that leniency made the Takkanah only the more necessary. It is 
surprising to find R. Hayyim Or Zarua (Res. 175) permitting the lend- 
ing of money and the accepting of these articles as pledges, without 
even mentioning the Takkanah. : 

* In modern times it was often invoked by putting on the cover 
of an epistle x”19N2a, ‘‘forbidden to read under the herem of R. Gershom”’. 
A similar prohibition in Geonic times is mentioned in Hazofeh 5.1. 
Also Shilte Ha-Gibborim Shebuot 4, end. The ordinance has found its 
way into the code Birke Josef, Yoreh Deah 334, 16. 


190 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


M 
but in the city which 
is nearest the com- 
pidifnante ) he 
summons should ‘call 
one to go to one of 
the three nearest ci- 
ties? which have a 
herem Beth Din. If 
there isa great Rabbi 
in the vicinity he 
may not refuse to 
issue the summons. 
The summons 
should call upon 
the defendant to 
appear before the 
Court of one of the 
three nearest cities. 
If the defendant is 
(not?) in a settled 
community, the 
statement of the 
agent of the Court 
that he delivered 
the summons is to 
be accepted as final. 


j. 14. Ifa man is not 
in the city (or even 
if he is in the city) 
and his wifedemands 


J 


should be issued in 
the city nearest the 
plaintiff andthat one 
need not go to a 
great rabbi afar. 
Nor may the rabbi 
refuse to issue asum- 
mons. 


13. Ifamanisin the 
city and his wife de- 
mands her mainten- 
ance, or even if the 


K 


gation is to be begun 
by the issuing of a 
summons in_ the 
city which is nearest 
and one should not 
be compelled to go 
afar’ to: a great 
rabbiand thusincur 
unnecessary expen- 
ses. The summons 
should call upon the 
defendant to present 
himself before one of 
the three cities where 
there is a court. If 
thereisa great Rabbi 
in the vicinity, they 
should go before him. 
He may notrefuse to 
issue the summons. 
Thestatement of the 
agent of the Court 
that he delivered the 
summons shall be 
accepted as final if 
the defendant isnot 
in a settled com- 
munity. 

14. If a husband is 
in the city, and the 
wife demands _ her 
maintenance,or even 


* This statement is probably the source for the ordinance men- 
tioned in RMP 715, that in “these days they may compel the judges 
to sit in judgment under the ordinance of the Communities”’. 

2 The request from the Court is not that the defendant should 
appear before it, but that he should choose one of the three nearest 


Courts for trial. 





M 


her maintenance, a 
herem may be-an- 
ounced against all 
who know aught 
of his property, and 
even bailments are 
to be reported. 


CHAPTER V 


J 


husband is not in the 
city, it is proper to 
declare a herem a- 
gainst all who know 
aught of his proper- 
ty and even bail- 
ments are to be de- 
clared. The Court 
shall set the alimony 
in accordance with 
what they find. 
Certainly the hus- 
band must state 
under the herem 
what he has in his 
possession. ' 


191 


K 


if heisnotin the city 
a herem may be 
announced against 
all who know any- 
thing of his property 
and even a_ bail- 
ment is to be reveal- 
ed. They shall fix 
her alimony in ac- 
cordance with that; 
all the more the hus- 
band can be compel- 
led toacceptaherem 
(to give a full state- 
ment of his pro- 
perty). 


The following is the portion of the Munich text that 


has been omitted above in order not interfere with the 
clarity of the arrangement o f the various codified Takkanot. 


[TRY O8 oO Pa Man ow om b> Sy pom mp nwon px 

Sy ya nso? xd on) ow yaw yaw oD dy pn don idxad 
line? fupettalensy ya 

(@piop>y proyd) aipmbo wand myawn omy by muon ps on 


modi wnaydr oup> > Senn qb0 o> by saanwnd Sia ons ps 
om) Sy sb>ps im> wy Jatom ony qaqa xb) oxan nada xb 
on ps oon nos pe wy tate bas monn by nou orn Suda 
voy pane aay xd) ony xdw sabi ayy od pby nov 

D> J’an anDDwD on Sw myDjya an own Sy onna Sinn eda 
Oy 

On OP. wns ow pwoo own dy Sinn xd on 

tmward Sx) nd -pim xorp ra anw pn 1 °%S3 ines anew ynn 
TN3p7 cay vA Tay Nd myo mbad ory? “ow powonm Ann: 
1S dsww ans oy owdy sy poy non oon pe 

x7 TS a> ps) anw ans ono desi ayn baw xdw an myn 
OTPA we mwyd rWw112 AIM LNW) 8 NPT onw jn 


192 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 
TEXT B 


SECONDARY RECENSION 


Besides the primary recensions of the Takkanot of R. 
Tam, we have, as has been said, a secondary recension, 
that is a recension which is evidently a further develop- 
ment and growth of the texts just studied. It is found in 
RMP 1022 (P. Heb. »),and in the appendix to the Likkute 
Ha-Pardes, Venice 1519, (L, Heb. 9). It occurs also in 
Ms. Merzbacher 75, mentioned above (chapter 1). This text 
is called below E (Heb. mn). Another form of P is found in 
Res. R. Moses Mintz (No. 102; see above, p. 219). Variants 
from this source are marked %. The sections which 
correspond to those of the primary recensions have been 
marked with the letters which denote them in that text. 
It will be seen from a cursory examination, that while one 
or two sections are omitted the framework of the compila- 
tion are the above Takkanot. (See also below p. 204). 

L isa later text than P. (See p. 202, note 3). That can be 
seen from section 12, where the writer of L has attempted 
an emendation. P reads, “this Takkanah was in vogue 
before the time of R. Gershom, but R. Gershom ordained 
that it be renewed yearly.”’ This reading is difficult, 
for how are we to assume that R. Gershom, finding a usage 
of paying tithes regularly, would make the obligation de- 
pendent on a yearly renewal of the Takkanah. L there- 
fore tries to explain it in this wise: ‘‘Before the time of 
R. Gershom there was a Takkanah to pay half a tithe, but 
R. Gershom ordained that it be renewed every year (and 
a full tithe paid).”’ 


TEXT 


pao ans ps Sdanad pw Snnm yma oxmxp pi vw ON «1 
Iw wap Snonm men Nba onp InN RY ON Tory Ty oxxd oRwI 
ambi mabma xxn2 13) px aba nor mwnp 

mana bua 2's p'ya ww nawa mbenm dSuad nw OTN pR .2 
py ‘725 onp 

2oanw PyT aw ow Ty OTN pynows y'v Ssem xbw on .3 





CHAPTER V 193 


same oda oesn np any ame nex ots pry xdbw on .4 

snd shia as yor Soa onn 20w> Osnw odio nei npn .5 
ndy>> yom Jina) nnd x's yom aay myy w ox myw qx pred 
pnd 

peys smn onnn by sayy pray oy ratd amp .6 

ov onme odin onboT a pei naph ma 7a ww vy .7 
ap >snon rob ow nw aDnw Opo n_ww 337an ‘ow ow qd 
732 mm 72 oon ow aw ownd 

mab xbs myprp nero tad sad win xb onoapn mpn .g 
mytoay dyn ps 

say mo yn) amb wn psi ams Sya awd wi ym> xbw mpn .9 
yoy yt os ammo bya cw wind in zu Sop exon ennx a adonnn 
ws yo shen ay? 

mt ons arose ont ber aran aos mbrpa ann *bapn .10 
AS17912 INN eam orn ns orp> AxIT INST ON NA Pa pRt 
opdin M_AS 12°99 NXP) 178 PAM Yan Twp dy 104 orp 
spy 

mw 1d odo ay Sere yyania aw on ma mow> xbw mypn .11 
mnps man > aw ond aos 797 os Dax man jp ATT 8Yw IMs 
psd ass inbsw m9 1pp wIbD PN Tayw mwa lantww mo 
Ds PN ow pris pwsad pnw maw md ym 162m mwd cnyt 


ones ny .o.n 1 

jor xba onn ows .b 2 

pn mvyds axan .o 3 

2dy7) .m 3a 

$NOND VY AMINA .n 3b 

‘nba mi ola Mw) ON). ay ws) mnyt mindy mr via nevi otpo oni .b 4 
J} ay IPN ANS Dw Ny 

Tih ell 

mnsip .b 6 

yop wi .n 7 

porta dips .b on 8 

wi .b .n 9 

word amin .b .n 10 

word now oo on 11 

Jpaxp “main .n wp .d 12 

xvi ox ot by on n> xerd nim nen (ny) wNT Ne? ON FX mm by 12 
ma nerd ani nen wT 

enrzew 5 14 

.mnpa bxw .b 15 

jnw mo imn tyow Sx] ‘ow wm .b 16 


194 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


savor 19>xow Sy abn ismpnn pri yaw i7oenan ir w py xb 
. sans Ssnw> ms 


pbin> maa any) wwyo ond oana pia’> 202905 xbw mapn .12 
y 2207p) ONNT 2n¥7 8d oN onal PP Nd IN yA PID w ON 
mw $53 mwind pn 7’ yn mpn ann on 


aawys 2aaxamw onp Sapa id remy ivan 23500 Sy orn .13 
on) poy pyix) bap main os 7’a 26Mw mo SD 25bapw ay pws 
oxy Sapn 27y9m wh 

MD \onp> noi Map yin wan mand wt Man" pn Ny .14 
WII VyT 7D) 2owemw aT 2 wD own 2sno197 MPa) ww 'PT 
32]7) ODYD nw DT On) wap Srp qa 311. ANTw s0Nqp ADP 
mood pnn> pax pei inst TaN 7D9n ADA ADA ON) Mop nw 
xb >> aay NAT TP Ando msyoaAM D> weer mowpA IN pes 
xox noon maa mand non mad pin adp pa nea o>iqw wns 
sw” weo 5195) mD0d nym cab samannb vynd 3 a a n> un 
mwyo Sy (’'a 1d p's) yraostD oy> xd) now> mr op) orya 
AP IN TPN 3s67w~KXY YPN 7D) MDS Nw s5IMAyMw NNT NDI 
Dns pom> cND pRwD JON) JOP 7D) omy mw od oN 
a's Poanbom? ypnt sian Ca 'x ov Sainm pw yPqextD ow 
azemeonn an p>) > ody Sor ori sox NNT 


wona .b 17 

wmpn .> 18 

Seiwa 5 19 

IS b 20 

ay on waxy > 21 

my” 522 mwand ypn own wat Awyn oxn onNI UPN A’D 29 OTP) .> .n 22 
wan mop .b on 23 

TWY. IY. ATW pra wo .pwa “yyy monw .b 24 
Sapw dy b 25 

Sy piys) prt min ax on poy ta rire > on 26 
aooovm .> 27 

5p now maa) .> 28 

te, OAn 39 

ASP AOY a.m pp Aor van 5 30 

opp SNP PID JD POD .2 Ww .n 31 

7m mn .moip ow .b wy’ pipm wD 32 

woo ber .n wn wp Seem aan .5° 33 

msm) en ab mands .b 34 

pon warn .> 35 

JOR) DIP IW TWN NW .w 36 

pipm ann .n 36a 


CHAPTER V 195 


Iwona wow xbt ar Sy AS ows amp) TP 0D? ON .15 
sins Sonox ww wren Sy Surv my 131 Suennd aatmw> pri 4s 
oy aind> > "BS DD yd a7psp> xdw on «16 
2 onyy mawn ya weads xow onn .17 
M08 nye? Xda rand ssndww yan ansa mynd xbw orn .18 
Janv) \p7t ON) 
ONY OI) ya) 38 Mayin pa man mpd xbw onn .19 
mo07 4025p "wown mban pp) 
On 'Pq92 RY pa on ‘roa Nw pa mp yx 41mpn .20 
bapw rya byaws 42w"a1 bv yom b> wan mip nyain mwNm 
mt Sy mn a> 4aipppn mbo 1d pry onn 
mbana wn ayT NYA AWN) Tay CT 'T Pp" D) PONT NT 21 
On’ NTT PSI wm 37 and) ayn ines 4559 mm 445yan on bas 
Mian mes. Spa say 2x7 oarn mp>o bas abwbn em prwe 
awn ovwa odain yo 
pow 72 ans obw pn ama podwo 4ent ns oroibanw ow .22 
DN) INNAD ‘yD 4818 DIWD 479NY wy or stupa or Som nvam mbann 
m1 OF ms 517’. So AT pt ‘yya Nd 5sotDN) ADON 490¥yn: 
aeya wand no55 Aad mw 
2 WY XD NPY 7317 PT Wy? VAX AMY wD MDT 527'N .23 
.538POXN NX FMI mod 
wove oN) ‘NDT w ssox iwbaw sayow onoIp bn npn .24 
pip> 3 37 
dws nm ndwr 1b os 38 
be bose 
sown > 40 
ys pa ya bya pa .n wan bya wey pa man Sya pa n’p ya mpn 5 41 
spya bya 
son > 42 
Jpop > 43 
USoU ane beY 
levee (ae ct 
A= nea Ape 
sany w 9 47 
wv own sanknn nwdoen 5 48 
soinni .b 49 
mn pad ps tad sox nod ant aw) 50 
woo ye t’a bo 
an tox 5b 52 
.<yvan nx bnw -» Sy sonoa bapa onn owd oni mpn> 9 5s 
YOww 1D 3D 54 
<i ae ox> } 55 


196 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


nosy Sxad spxw onata mrwdor yo wsy Pond 1D ona7 bund 
nwRo pwoom soxw Jato any yn jad orwor as pwnd pr) 
pooa Sxmd ar ps cosy Sxmd ota oitaNd past yy> wn awe 
op) pt Sa pub sop pextm ran 

sw yond mom onyr yo noxd sawyw onsap orn mipn .25 
mo wsy xd) patos ow ssww mawon onyn 2 yo nnxa pad wy 
602192 WN OTN 59v ON AMDaw Yawn wpady qd mm ams 
yp dy wor 

rony Sy) oy ‘1 °2Da 61iyorm Inyo oNw w dx mupna oi .26 
52 mdapn oy 62p95 15 onya 2 yo nova no$> 15 asad arp: xb 
mxw aod oan va yox) T'a bw .Syaa ttad nob> y'3 mpno wn 
W218 e3nnNa 72> Naw F'n mrrd>wa 1d axe mom 1S msitd 
yain> n> w mown vy Sapm esimn? ano ON) mpnm yD °D OD 
10 NMSA yan aNaw ya mynd ainsd yy imsa penn duad 
t’ao on 3 eine awe ty ows i>ws ndenn Suay Sion ony 13 
wa xdbw qan> 67o7>s xo xd on 

wo mwod A’apn aN Onn cendwi ans Sapm qrad esard an 
o@>y) opr orpowh: aoxw oonad sax ann ons dsc rbapw 
71OD .O3¥) ONN) INN ADIAM NNN mand: 79d) aw 7onD73 Nan 
27"'D YI Mypn 


TRANSLATION 


1. If there is precisely a quorum, in a synagogue, and the 
Hazzan has begun to pray, none of those present may 


ana pad yan wy a1 yaind moon onyn yo nns wyw 5 57 

Jo pa ma ow 5 ss 

Jo 5 59 

npr 5 6o 

pro wom > 61 

hi piee 

oyAd ans ana yan mbm 1d aoxw orm porn ww ‘nan .5 63 

amy 5 ont 3 65 

smwoy ow 5 66 

sansd omy 5 67 

smb 5 6s 

noun 69 

maw moa wo 5 70 

QnDo”D Oo 71 

wv opps *> ypm) od>yan nw da qn ww ody now7 map wxind xden b 72 
wma prt vya brn 





CHAPTER V 197 


leave until the Hazzan has completed his prayers. But if 
one left after the Hazzan began the recital of Kaddzsh or 
Kedushah, it may be completed without a quorum. So 
the law is found in Halakot Gedolot. * 

2. A person is not permitted to interrupt the prayers of the 
Sabbath or Festival day unless he has thrice interrupted 
the prayers of the daily services without success. 

3. There is a herem that the Hazzan may not recite the 
prayers when a person protests until the “elders of the 
community”’ tell him to proceed. 

4. A herem: that a man should not leave his wife and stay 
away for more than eighteen months without her per- 
mission. ? 

5. A takkanah of the Geonim: the people of Israel may 
establish a herem with any time-limit, but they may sus- 
pend it for an individual because of a temporary need. 
When the time-limit has passed there is no need of releas- 
ing the herem,3 but within the time-limit they are em- 
powered to release it. 


t See above, p. 137, note 6. In PD there is an interesting state- 
ment added to this section: ‘‘This law is similar to that of the priest 
_who is sacrificing at the altar when it is discovered that being the 
child of a forbidden marriage he is unfit to perform the priestly func- 
tions. In that case too, he need not be removed from the altar but he 
may complete his sacrifices, since he has begun them.” 

The statement is evidently based on Mishna Terumot 8.1, quoted 
Kiddushin 66b, which provides that the sacrifices offered by a priest, 
who afterwards is discovered to have been the child of a forbidden 
marriage, are not invalid. Nothing is there said, however, in regard 
to permitting a priest who is found unfit, to complete the service. 
Truly, Maimonides and Tosafot (Ta‘anit 17b) go as far as to say that 
even the sacrifices offered by him after the discovery are valid, but 
there is no source for permitting him to continue to act in the priestly 
capacity even for a moment after the discovery of his unfitness. 

2 See Takkanah of R. Tam concerning Abandonment, above p. 167. 

3 The view that the herem is a means of legislation is a later de- 
/ velopment. Originally it was conceived as a vow on the part of the 
individual of the community or a decree of the foremost scholar of 
the generation(See Rashi, RFL 21). It is here described rather as a 
constitutional means of legislation, its original meaning having been 
all but obscured. The doctrine that a herem with a time-limit expires 
automatically when that time-limit is reached is not generally agreed 


198 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


6. One’ may converse with a transgressor who has diso- 
beyed the herem and he:may be counted as one toward 
a religious quorum. : 


a. 7. Acity? which has a cemetery may compel the villages 
which bring their dead to that cemetery to come under 
the jurisdiction of its court. And the French Rabbis say 
that if it is known that there once lived a scholar in a 
certain place, it may be taken for granted that an estab- 
lished court existed there and one must stand for trial there. 


8. A Takkanah of the Ancients: a defendant in a litigation 
regarding the inheritance of landed estates may insist 
on bringing the matter before the highest Jewish court 
of the province. 


b. 9. A Takkanah: not to divorce a woman against her will. 
Such a Writ of Divorce is void. If he gave her the writ 
originally with her consent, and then it was found to be 
unfit, he may give her a second writ against her will, pro- 
vided we know that she did not realize that the first writ 
was void. 


10. R. Yehiel? says that those who pledge themselves 


to. Those who consider the herem a vow or a decree of a scholar, held 
that it continued in force until abrogated even though its time limit 
had passed. This seems to have been Rashi’s view (Commentary 
to Sanhedrin 596). The Tosafists, however, take issue with this point 
of view. They insist that Rashi’s words are to be interpreted as ap- 
plying only to such Takkanot as have no time-limit (Comp. Yam 
Shel Shelomo, Bezah 1.9, Yebamot 6.41). This latter view is also held 
by R. Eliezer b. Nathan (Raben, Prague, 76a). 

* R. Isaac b. Sheshet in a responsum (No. 172) quotes the rule 
laid down in this section from R. Meir b. Baruch. 

2 This law of jurisdiction was invoked by R. Hayyim Paltiel 
(RMP 249), but he does not quote the Takkanah, See also Isserlein, 
Pesakim No. 65, end. 

3 For the ordinances governing the suspension of betrothals see 
section 2, p.139, above. The R. Yehiel referred to is probably R. 
Yehiel of Paris, who lived in the thirteenth century. In Pd, this sec- 
tion is somewhat amplified. We read there, ‘As for a betrothal with- 
out the undertaking of a herem, there is an ancient herem to maintain 
the betrothal, and that he who refuses should pay.’’ That section is 
quoted from Pd (or a text similar to it) in the responsa wrongly ascribed 
to R. Isaac b. Sheshet, Munkacs 1900, f. 42a. 


-_ ia ———— 





CHAPTER V 199 


under a herem of the communities need no suspension 
of the herem if they release each other. But if one party 
wants to maintain the herem and the other refuses, the 
party who wishes to maintain it is free because of the 
release by the other, but the other party remains bound. 
Some of the French Rabbis dispute this. 

b. 11. A Takkanah: not to rent the house of a Gentile in 
which a fellow-Jew lived until a full year has passed after 
the other Jew left the house. But if the Jew said to the 
Gentile, ‘‘Let the house to me at a lower rate than I have 
been paying, and he gave no reason for asking a reduction 
in the rent, and the second offers the Gentile the amount the 
former tenant had been paying regularly, in that case there 
is no ordinance, unless the houses of the city have fallen 
or risen in value. And the Takkanah does not affect a 
Jew who lets a house to a fellow-Jew. 

d. 12. A Takkanah: not to refuse to enter the herem to 
raise the tithe. One member of the community may com- 
pel everyone to enter the herem if there is Minyan in 
the city. But one cannot become a Gabbaz (an administra- 
tor of the funds) if the others do not permit it. This 
Takkanah was in vogue before R. Gershom but R. Gershom 
ordained that it be renewed yearly. 

g. 13. A herem concerning one who strikes his neighbor: 
The community must not release him so that he may be 
counted for a Mznyan, until he has agreed to perform what- 
ever the Court may enjoin upon him. This is provided 
the assailed person makes a claim, otherwise the Community 
may suspend the herem of their own accord. — 

14. Furthermore did R. Tam ordain that if one struck 
his neighbor outside the synagogue he is to pay twenty-five 
dinars, and in the synagogue the fine is double that amount. 
So did R. Joseph Kara‘ testify that he saw R. Yehiel of 
Paris decide. If one struck one’s neighbor twice he must 
pay a double fine, but if the person assailed hit back at the 


* L. Reads R. Joseph Karwan. The person has not been identi- 
fied, but he may have been related to the R. Joseph Kara, who was a 
contemporary of Rashi. See Einstein, R. Joseph Kara u. Sein Com- 
mentar zu Kohelet, p. 22. 


200 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


assailant, he lost his rights. There is then no need of 
releasing the first assailant from the herem, but the fines are 
to be decided upon according to the number and character 
of the blows. All this is taken from a manuscript of R. 
Yehiel of Troyes,’ for the distinction between the one who 
strikes another in the synagogue or outside has not been 
accepted by the rabbis of France, but they permit the 
Court to increase or decrease the amount according to the 
circumstances (and the position) of the assailant and the 
assailed. This fine is to be given to the assailed? and not 
to the poor, as it is said in regard to the case of the half 
Zuz, which was ordered to be given to the poor. So also 
was it ordained to be given that even one woman or a 
relative is to be trusted when they testify that they saw 
one strike another. So too, is a minor believed in a case 
when it is not possible to summon other fit witnesses. As 
we read in the Talmud chapter Hahobel,s ““There was a 


* The word wwe may be a corruption of wiv or wy Ve which 
occurs quite often as the tittle of R. Yehiel of Paris (Compare Or Zarua 
I, 232a, and see Wellesz in J. J. L. G., 1906, p. 106). The reading of L 
vinun wopp dwn ' would seem to substantiate this theory. There is no 
“R. Yehiel of Troyes’? known. 

2 In Rabbinic law, all fines are given to the person damaged. Thus 
the thirty shekels to be paid by the master of the ox who gored a slave, 
are given to the master of the slave (Exodus 21. cf. Deut. 22.19, 29). 
It was only in the Middle Ages, that the custom of the environment 
of taking all fines for the State, influenced the Jews to take fines for 
the poor. In this case however, Talmudic precedent was followed 
and the fines were paid to the person injured. 

3 Baba Kamma 36b. In that case an assailant was ordered to 
pay half a Zuz for his assault. The person injured said, ‘Since it is 
only half a Zuz, let it go to the poor.’’ After a while he changed his 
mind and wanted to use it for himself. R. Joseph, who was the judge 
in the case, and also the administrator of the funds for the poor, re- 
fused to return it, saying that now it belonged to the poor. The story 
shows, as the writer wants to prove, that ordinarily the fines were 
paid to the assailed person. 

4 Chapter 8 of Baba Kamma. 

The story referred to is evidently that told in Baba Kamma 90b. 
But the writer is quoting from memory and wecannot assume that the 
differences between his account and that before us are due to any textual 
errors. The principle that the writer wants to prove, that the judge 
may act as witness in such a case although ordinarily the same person 
cannot act both as judge and witness, is borne out by the story as it 








SO ee a a 


5 
ae Ss eS Se 


CHAPTER V 201 


person who struck his neighbor, and R. Judah said, ‘‘Here 
am I who saw it, ‘““Go and pay”. And the payment must 
be according to the number of blows. 

15. A herem: even a single witness or a relative may be 
accepted against an informer, and even though they did 
not hear him defaming but saw him speak to the ruler and 
then the ruler gave orders against the defamed person, 
or some other such circumstantial evidence. 

h. 16. A herem: not to cut off the margin of a book even 
in order to write thereon. 

k. 17. A herem: not to put repentant converts to shame . 
because of their sins. | 

n. 18. A herem: not to read the letter which one’s fellow 
sends to another without his knowledge, but if it is thrown 
away one may read it. 

m. 19. A herem: not to buy stolen things, such as images 
or a chalice or priestly vestments, and prayer books, or the 
vessels of worship because of the danger. 

j. 20. A Takkanah of R. Gershom, the Light of the Dis- 
persion: whether the husband is in a foreign country or 
not, if his wife demands her maintenance, they shall 
announce a herem against all those who know anything 
of his property, (and all the more if the husband is in town 
he must state the extent of his property under a herem) 
and on the basis of that amount they shall decide the 
amount due her. 

21. The law that one? cannot collect from women and 
slaves? refers only to cases of as$ault, but if the husband 
benefited by his wife’s dishonesty he must make restitu- 
tion. R. Nahshon Gaon‘ wrote that (even in the case 
‘of assault) they, the slaves and the women, are free only 


appears before us in the Talmud. But a comparison will show at a 
glance that we have here not even an epitome of the story. 

t Lit. ‘‘Clashing with a woman or a slave is always evil’, for 
if one injures them he must pay, while if they injure another he has 
no redress. Mishna Baba Kamma 8.6. 

2 See additional note page 377. 

3 Perhaps R. Nahshon, Gaon of Sura toward the end of the ninth 
century. The responsum is quoted in Pardes (ed. Const. 24d and 
ed. Warsaw 60a). 


* 


202 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


from payment of damages, but they are to be punished 
with stripes, otherwise an unworthy slave, and a base 
woman might strike (with impunity) worthy men.‘ 


22. If two people assail each other, the one doing the 
greater harm is to pay to the other.2) The wounds and 
the shame are also to be taken in consideration. Naturally 
there are heavier damages for two or three blows than for 
a single blow.’ If the assailant is stubborn and says 
“I do not want to be (variant: I insist on being) judged 
according to the law of the Torah,’’4 the Court may with- 
draw from the litigation and give permission to the assailed 
one to go to the Gentile Courts. 


23. My masters says, if a man hits a person who insulted 
his father, justice must be done for the person hurt, 
for we find no law permitting one to strike one who insulted 
one’s father. 


24. A Takkanah of the Early Geonim: if a person has 
proof that he has been defamed, and makes representations 
to the ruler whereby he saves himself from the defamation, 


* Mordecai, Baba Kamma 8.91 
2 A quotation from Baba Kamma 33a. 


3 This passage which in the Hebrew is not clear, was completely 
misunderstood by the writer of L; the writer of Pd simply omitted it. 
The interpretation given here is offered with some diffidence. 


4 According to the strict Talmudic law, of course, he could not 
be adjudged guilty. Firstly only properly ordained Rabbis can be 
judges in cases of Assault (Sanhedrin 1.1). And ordination of that kind 
being impossible outside of Palestine, jurisdiction over such cases 
ceased when Palestine was no longer the Jewish center. Secondly, 
the ordinances admit testimony inadmissible in accordance with the 
views of the Talmud. Thirdly, the fines set are arbitrary. The 


Court could not therefore insist in the defendant obeying it completely” 


but on the other hand, it could refuse to protect him against defamation 
before the Gentile authorities unless he obeyed its injunctions. P 
reads here, ‘‘And if he says, ‘I do not want the judgment of the Torah’”’ 

The meaning is the same in either case, but it seems to me thay L is 
here to be preferred. 


5’ This sounds like a decision in an actual case. It is possible 


that the word ‘‘Master’’ refers to Rashi who is often referred to in 
that way in French works. 


all aan ie, 





CHAPTER V 203 


but by those representations! he hurt the original informer 
and even accussed him in a worse manner, than he had 
been accused—the second informer is free from guilt. 
For since he had to try to save himself, this is not considered 
‘saving himself by the property of others’ and the first 
is a Malshin in regard to every law and fine. 


4. 25. A Takkanah under the herem by the Ancients: 
that a summons should be issued by one of the cities to 
a complainant that the defendant should come to trial 
with him before one of the three nearest cities where there 
is a court. So that he should not incur expenses in going 
and seeking the prominent men of the province. If there 
is a prominent rabbi in the vicinity the summons shall 
be issued by him. 


26. It is also one of these Takkanot that if a man is sum- 
moned to appear before three cities, he must not hesitate 
to choose one of the three cities. It is also a tradition 
as an ordinance of R. Gershom to choose the greatest 
court.’ The word of the Agent of the Court is accepted 
when he says that he wanted to show the defendant the , 
summons, and that he told him to come before the Court 
within one or two days.4 If he refuses to come, the 
Community shall judge him on the basis of the testimony 
of the Agent. The complainant has the right to stop the 
prayers in that city to compel them to issue a summons, 
so that the defendant should choose one of three cities. 
And after the summons has been issued he may interrupt 
the prayers until three men sit as a Court. And if the 


t The text of P is here clearly defective and is not to be saved 
by so easy an emendation as that proposed by Bloch in his edition of 
RMP. 

2 Bloch emends ‘‘three’’ to ‘‘two’’ because he reads oy instead 
of ony making witnesses out of the cittes. The context shows that 
cities are meant here and not witnesses and the parallel passages in 
Pd leaves no doubt as to the matter. 

3 This passage is omitted in B. 

4 The ordinary term was three days, Cf. Res. Rashi in RFL f. 
15b, cf. also Takkanot Shum 2, below p. 230, and Or Zarua, Baba 
Kamma 436, Res. of R. Samson of Sens. 


204 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


defendant refuse to come before them, they must issue a 
writ that he did not comé. 

27. It is customary to pronounce a blessing over the com- 
munity in connection with the announcement of a herem, 
as we find that the threatened punishments of Deuteronomy 
are followed by the blessing of Moses. 


End of the Takkanot of R. Gershom. 


TEA Ter C. 


Besides the two recensions of the Takkanot of R. Tam 
that have been discussed, there is also in existence one in 
which the Takkanot of R. Tam are interwoven, as it were, 
with those of R. Gershom. In this recension the writer 
aims apparently to combine all the extant ordinances and 
to arrange them in codified form. The original of: this 
work has not come to my notice, but in several manuscripts 
it has been preserved with a number of additions by later 
writers. These additions to some extent obscure the work 
of the compiler so that it is no longer easy to say which 
text he used in making his compilation. 

In establishing the text of this recension, the following 
manuscripts have been used: Ms. British Museum, Cat. 
Margoliouth 1081, (Add, 27129), referred to below as A, 
Hebrew 8; Merzbacher, Cat. Rabinowitz, 135, referred 
to as B, Hebrew 3; and British Museum, Cat. Margo- 
liouth, 569, (Or. 1083), referred to as C, Hebrew 2. 

B and C are practically identical, and they have been 
used only to correct the obvious errors that occur in each. 
A is longer than the others and contains material that is 
omitted inthem. For instance we learn from it, that the 
rule declaring that any city in which a rabbi is known to 
have lived at some preceding time may be assumed to 
have hada herem beth din, was established in 1272 (section 3). 
The writer of A, too, marks the end of section 42, with 
the statement ‘“‘these are the ordinances of R. Tam which 
the Israelites of the exiles of Edom (Christendom) have 
accepted upon themselves and for their children forever. 
Those who transgress them may be compelled by the 





CHAPTER V 205 


Court to make restitution.’’ There is a similar remark 
in BC but coming at the end of section 41, which is a well- 
known ordinance of R. Tam, it seems in that text to refer 
only what immediately precedes it. 

Both A and BC contain a number of interpolated re- 
marks commenting on the ordinances from the point of 
view of Talmudic law. The strange lines at the end of BC, 
which contain only the opening words of the Ordinance 
of R. Tam against informers (Chapter IV, Text A) followed 
by the words “‘These are the ordinances of R. Gershom, the 
Light of the Dispersion.”’ are clarified by an examination of 
A, in which is the compilation of the ordinances followed 
by the complete text of the Takkanah of R. Tam against 
the informers (see above, p. 159). It is evident that the 
writer of BC who in several instances shows a desire to 
abbreviate the material before him, added only the open- 
ing words of the herem of R. Tam, but did not think it 
necessary to quote the whole of it. 

In view of the fact that the larger part of this recension 
is merely a re-arrangement of the older texts that have 
already been discussed, it does not seem necessary to 
translate it. The remarks necessary for its further elucidation 
have been included in the corresponding sections of L-P.. 

Wherever A differs materially from BC the two ver- 
sions are given in parallel columns; where the differences 
are slight, the text given is that of A, while the variants 
of B and C are placed in the notes. Version A has however 
in some instances ‘‘been corrected’’ by a later hand; 
the original reading has in such cases been placed in par- 
entheses, and the new reading, which is usually found above 
the line or on the margin, has been printed in brackets. 
In one case which is noted, version A has suffered a serious 
omission, and the text has been completed from BC. 


Le) S 
mou TS pw wa Mupn wa nynstp moan Wn 
, y") now ND pwn 
ora xd) ano. xb word xow ose rvan cond indy .1 


xv) 2.3 


206 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


p"y pad ons 20m Ov OTN JIT Way ON 7a ON iw Opn .2 

osaya xbw 9x1 37’a2 py To ONT bn pwa Ax OY DA ONT 
mano ainsd> oda paw xox pw xds camp ax gbdt onnn bn 
spas ars ooo ad >> yan ax ox onyy cans ony xba 
art pop 1b mbw> pans sand yainn dyn wt pop ax aay pnond 


fan S 
'w wryataw npax °5y7) oN) .3 


by aw aDnw opo 2") obs 'n 
Nap ‘onom) PY AMNA Nn op 
(Dy AS>vm 3’. on ow mw xd 

1 MS pn 


comm o> dion Day pp MapA ma ma ww Py mapnn .4 
ow p> ow 

nein tas sad win xd onoap orn nyow onoap nbapi .5 
mytoav dyna s’ab xbsx myprp 

no ox) mb> wn pre wpm amo Sys inwyd 7m ind xdw .6 
mysaa abnna md yn saw pray ws) anxtow ‘nyt ‘nd or wi 
Sipps awe ay xbw wrt 9D"ya ow 00d ym dy ow nia Nexon 
| ORT 

MSN "9 Dw ‘pa pr anna cenad oS) ow: ‘2 Nwd xdw .7 
DYyO INT 119~N Ty wD Nd OF ON NI) ANTI 107 D PID 
MYO IS MNDw2 yOX) Ta nN AWA Anan NAN” 7273 >) 


vat 8 
DIN "01D WNT IN WNT ON ‘ya MAID ONDTIP 01N.8 


sbapow onnm ana pax psa’ wd awe) er ‘ms adap qwro 

77x 7 nown anxd nex wR oAYton on on nnd AND pox 

ps bax cpnnd 7D wD wR AND 27 ns 
NSN ‘YD PA 


"3 ow ww 2 31 

pw oem ans 82) 2.2 2 

DANS Vyo porn "PN W223 

Mr Bee) Vans eae eee 

Ort pop yams mbwd 2 a 5 

ond ov oon 2 2 6 

NOX WI? 37 

JD} JW) ANSI b) 7? 7M) ON 2.3 8 

wx 7 SiO_A TNT AYT NPW IPRT ON D"ya 2.3 9 


YK... 10 
WOON 2.2 1 





CHAPTER V 207 


w orn nbap xba 7 nowm 

7? nownn orp> “noqp orn 

ynn> w 4s 1a ann at) 

wey Jy wnmd oNwI OX OdID) 
£7273 1D) oy 


pin nbap xba 7 nown .9 
ops dyapd onoqp on wy 
w 48a anna qytpb) nowna 
1b pRw pd OY ON ON ANAd 
snd oxwa ps yoo odbw> an 
snmd am) aa byve xd on 
Dxw OwIN7 pavna SD onprd 
IN. TAN Tos 525 pamn anad 
Saw pro pre od pied isa 


ON) INA pas ps oan yo ard aaron os Syerp aan m1) .10 

AS19711 ANN yam 29m IN) OANA ovp> AX oNNT 

nprx 227 nxp) xwrd mow Mam yan wD dy xwrd ami orpd 
Son onatd nan eS wet Nw? ON JON Am opin 


1% w anon 4anam pq> an pom now maa 3p mom .11 
> 6Ty mma asy nbn xd 4s srany awp (77D) bvad mw 


2 
mwa ini mbpna b> bua mm 
byad my spas Sym arm ornrsa 
Np D') 


opin ep’) mbpnn bom 


& 


yanimw opoa pr mbpn duad Sia wwe ya nyo cna ‘aw 


jal 


Ima mn 1 yan byaws 4S 
Suad 5)D> is 1DINA yan 7’a 
~yav nyo cnaaw benn b> 
ans orppd 4$°> Sapa phiay psn 
pinon ‘yo? xba ‘ya Sopnnd 
aaw ams ib$am pond 4on 


ov Sbpnn 


S 


ans apna no>> Sapa pdia psi 
pinon nye xba Soannbd xyisa 
maay oms bbam prnom id 4dr 
not oman» >Sya non 
Son bund Sia o’ns ow yan 

“vyay nyo ona 


chy atin list: at 
orp> AXITA Man WD 2.2 2 
2 PND OINYD) 2.2 3 

Alyce tginves dry lane fate te! 
wany ndbpn iW 2.3 5 

2") mbpn ‘1 Sum ay «1.2 6 


208 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGBS 


ayan ow Sava va pa nawa pa mbpn dyad indw .12 
mipn 25awa bax pb 7aD mbpn bua xd ox nan by ooNd ww 
satm crvdn dbp ‘os wo nawa bvads dia smbnnsd ps Sapa 
pyDa AX oO) naw mm axv> AS pond bya on ea be yp yin 
cad) pwdnd nob pr on po pond anpi7 maa pin Anws7 
Sym cn wa ayy orn spo poy ido eds stn 7'2 15 mwyE 
yor? on 6f 729 ds ‘ond xd wpdon vmaxnd w Sennd) ‘oxw 670) 
on rn) ipbod epww ond 2 on pay ws on “po p>0d and 
6) py” 


Nw os Sapa yo ans oy axe ad wn rand a’a Sxwn .13 
oxan Sod 7mwn sow xd ox 12 SSannd xp xdw voy nord 
and pd n’o Sxwnd pan yo ma dSSpnnbd 


yn aw > sw ty ots punows x'v boam xbw pan wn 14 
bSanw 


sy jinn sendy Sapa maomd mob sw mas 1 mtaNw °p .15 

[ONY IPI APS "DR myD aT ow yoy» bow ona ob> IDI 
bi PR) WNYNWw MAI ow May 973d AIAN AN Ww 1b PR AN 
mr dy ‘apnar "ad sad you us 1098 DIMA DDN ND ‘nd yan 


ONTO OM 737. OX IND AIM 11/pN PyT 1a Mwy ON .16 
pqan mpna io xbw mod ps mpnn dvad oye onnn py 
wmo> ory myi p> S9m 1D nata ayyd 127'ad ps vd F'n By N'D 
aya ody on ba mipnan aro aywn Jax °pD IN ONoIpA 
wyo Wd 13Avy JD) MAIDA Id 


Ov OTN wy NNED 2 21 

Nay WM) 345'8 

n mbnns> "BN 2.2 3 
noon maa pm 3.3 4 
“TD 2.25 

2 "DD CNDDIM ,'N Wow Ns 
apn bab a 2 7 

1 1.2 8 

JON NW OW MDD TT 1.3 9 
.1'3.1> TWYS FN 2.2 10 

INS MPN Wy Mpn 2.2 11 
im Sy awy a pr 2.2 12 
JIT 2 2 18 





CHAPTER V 209 


el 


DXDI¥D ON 9D 7"223 PD PS ON) 
by nw ps $Spnzy pina Snnm 
sory ay pion Spady nex 
5453 NTT RE) Tay ON? inden 
79 mpn Sy ray 1b>> ‘Fm vany 
7’ ‘py 'nben coy inn 4S 
mwTp Is wap Snn7 "DRw "DI 
779 92) 9D) Snnaw anNo sr 
2 Nw oy naw yy ‘yn 
IMS pr M8 aeIdH JAW wD 
SOND TDW DR 


awd xbw “nap orn ew on 

pa mdawa pa Ss 1a aw ma 
moon mw io oxdso ay mrovowa 
x> oN mam yD “TTT NYw IIMs 
‘os oN. aw Seow mena 
mom omnes °> wenpy 12 700 
WIDwN NOs Ayw MwD PNADww 
‘ow 37> yns ws ond TON Cwm 
IW Mayy mw Osten 47> pnw 
‘OX DX OAM mpm ow SX aNnY 
Ssqw py -aw mxip> xonow 
D> ams bened ma -pownn 
mw> ans Send ow own 
Dn ww oes) vnsqD noms 
b> S*aw nprx ody ows cnynw 
"8D 7X OIpD n'n ow Tw oIpD 
maw ond wap ‘ono any 77 
ETD yanin by vbm "2 onn 


Sy moan ‘pn dy saym 

ipn> ynayn ypnd mond ra 
m So) od. map InN 7277 
n> apts Sapm ya pin w oN 
po w "DS Sapp ww ox ma> 
1 Kwon ar onna pid ya 
masn> doa yay odhya owd 


8 


hyp npisq maa w DN) 17 
expr SSpnnd wr Snnm oxaiwn 
Sx 1) ps os poasd npn man 
b6>n win mbwpn nay ow Sr 
wan Sw oonz say >>> ‘a anyi 
anbpn ono ax mdw pwn 


sw ma ny awd xdw .18 
nx? ans mw oxdp ay 2m 13 
maw ond 397 ‘ox Pan yo TNT 
Mayy mwa nw mo mnpa%d 
minba byw mo pp 1d ‘DIN PN 
sw) mrawd onyt pr id ‘ox on 
SNY ISN PRI pnw ‘ows md yn: 
sobre Nd o8 OFF 2PM ow PR 
oven Ss yay ona pr 
yovon dy yan bsawd ma 
angi mNan mw> pow 


ona pia apd xby .19 

ssnn ma bs swyon wand etn 
amy tata by Sapa osnws 
pig wos mr ba. ob ns ma 
moaomd b> sans n’ya im Ty. 
n> on ona] a No IS yr 
W347 onNpo om oANNT OS? 


210 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


1 >"y onal TP Nd SN PANNA 
mw $53 wan jpn 


baw non 


NNT OD TT AwYyD °xMD Own?) 
MwIMY Jpn Ww Van 7p 
mw boa 


oman 7pD SN m>pn os mop we sexy xbw 20 


Syn mera xbw poy 1b ww snyan ow 


nha 
mn) (onm $5 “noqp orn 
onn bapm od rpmw crvan 
52d pwd momw on/p mrray 
md apy ni by) netpay 727 
“VYTDW IN 72 ‘ONw 


= 
pup> was jpn nm tM 
WWI7.OS aT P4aPT "Dd AON 
fyi 


dal 


TNTW ‘15 ON) WR INS ap 
bipp jos) muvp boa yD) nDTw 
np WI) "wD pomd www PRY 
p72 wan wpm bs wep xdbw 
an p> yup ww dy op op 
S77 


S 


an ADon by enoIp on .21 
omp weaay orn Sapad wemw 
mertpaw 127 555 ws y>20d maonw 
vey 7 S5 apd pby Sapw n'y 
WS OM DIDNT AX ON poy Fa 

ooxy> Sapa im 


S : 
22 


& 


Ap) TTT AWRY wpm .23 
bana pap x75) ar Sy jos Pr 
mand ypnt xian ('3 ' p"D 
TIN Us NT oT cay 9 b's 
ow) Trea bn mw > ordw dor 
any Sp 725 7») AwR IA Ip In 
pnd and 


‘2 an p'n won 5.24 
mom wane ow ‘xT mop 
row 2"x obw pn ania podwn 
mt mua nt bom nenam bana 
‘NT Y) INNA "Nn OwA ANY wr 
mond xxpy wy xopr ww Spr 
nx 't xdbem “NDI Py 7 Obwni 
Ynw wo IN yoSy woe Jm0 
bp ww no mov ow 2 3 1 


“MN nd May 2 a 2 
iO a fe 3 


CHAPTER V 211 


xbw npaxsa qs or 52 jaynd ps 
by T'n1a wn dx ipa iwwp 
pip owp> ora mw iid mr 

mso77 a Dd yup ww dy 


roxy 72 poo Amn pt o> ant Jad ‘ow m7 OxyN ON) .25 
WD) NX ADM ADen 4M yy Iwo ya DD wands nonb mewn un 
[pest mood onnn anno pax pry amor ens pwsn 7D TAK 


he 
myst 317 °»> wey oIpn 4S 
DN DNF NA? pax ORY Ny 
I’22 Py MDF piyx? x? 


Mt 208) TWN IN ap Toad) 

by oN) nyTT Towa AN) or by 

qs pwbrw> “yow pry mpon 

by mx mm bennd rat omso 
ans xonox os ywoon 


yoy (aa mw yw 


8 


Ap) Try ~w> No 7D) .26 
NYT JTOND) (NYT OTOND) FS 
Syow PRY NOD PY I0N) 
py TITOwD ON GN wed>rw 
win Py Pwd MX IN 2wion 
JINN NINN DW IN 


Ja ainod As pp ywda psp> xdbw .27 


yal 


S 
AN) am op iby Ppa y's) 
xb) man owe 1b pn maant 
Ww pow 


yd nysyo mawn Sya wad xbdw .o8 
meow ry mdan po) ON oD ‘ayn yar man np’d xbw .29 


190 "Ww 


monn anys? 52 ynand ndwros 2nan ‘na msyid> xbdw .30 


anv 1p 30N) 


orn ido mai ad pr 4inver xd pa ya Sya pays qpn .31 
bapw ya Sys ox w'd) sibw itpp AN ob> bw oytrn b> by 
wt Sy mn a mb yppoan mb 15 pre onn dy 


amyo yw> ..2 1 


aasv ‘nyyp a mand om nbwy 2.2 2 


“nn ipa ON 2a 3 
10D MND NVNW NVR) . a 4 
yh y ce het 


212 J“eWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


sinny whan ‘ox (an Ny) ede yow omen ‘pn .32 
War pwIT ‘ONY 49997 ‘WIN YD wy se-xN? TD 20727 
WT TWD Pwr ‘OXY IIIT Ww Any yo rata wba AS pwsr pwbor 
oxy Sxp pt ya pr Senn yo wsy dxmd oto roo > “pax 
wyw oONIP oan 3pm vypr pt 6b5D9 pwd sapr pwRrm yan pwns 
sid nnxa pad wy yan 77w yaind mom ma won oyn yo nns 
mon word) 75° aw Sy mo sexy [D T'a ov ww IDWoR 3) Oyn 
58 1 pn mppp xdi0 yp") p"a7 p"pDd NI Nxp pmrwaw sawn 
vp Sy urpp apa awn w ox 


1p S 
% nooo yi XS awnm 
mom 


psy 295 POM oy Da orm Nx os w yds pna oa .33 
pa ony ‘2 yo nmsxa nod) 15 synaSm ano xb 


12 
nbd y'5 mpn 4D mbapz on 


syn trad 


mon 1 mend asaw rind wows yor Sst 2a men 34 

mown 1S spew oo own 127nK2 J’a5 sow sa modva vd ‘xe 
13390? ON) "pn DD bw yd ‘oNw OD °IWT 1D TNX AID yan 
pont Suad yaind n> ow yoy den oy ann ims ow Snpm wm, 
byad SoD oi 37 JO yainn 14aw ya ‘wm ‘ind> yA ‘MENA 
wa xdw ainod om>y xa xd on t’25 on ‘2 12e Jy ow dws nbpn 


Sopt> MND w NW 2.3 

OR yO ANY YT OAT 22.3 
evord 2.3 

“TORT 'ONY......O8Y OI .2 2 
oyad nay ord Jaxy 22.2 

nm pypi yt bod a. 

NIV. DY 02 

DA wD 22.2 

pnd paxaw awn ap 2 3 

TN p"D) 2.2 10 

on 33 2.3 11 

.'T MPNT yD %D.....20 INNA .2 2 12 
1'05 x25 yan ano.) .3 13 

evonn dvad yainna dia yan aw my ‘nD 172° WR 22.2 14 


oo nggoaaert® wot = 





CHAPTER V . 213 


pa S 
pomd ~y yo 97 apna | 
x mpno ow) pn 
ow asy> Sew ws appid ps ompp ays apex ps .35 
xs Doyen ow "ppm aD oayan ow Sawa ides onpPmn 
~pann by 1b ww my ow awa by ww pppen by 1b ww ym 
spp asy> ia mpirn toda pr Syy See Sy m9 epoim Sewn 
Soya tab ims Sawaiastpbw ow asyd xow odiys oyar b> 
bo> Nava oat awa bas wor >> tod ayan ow Sawa ppp 
ON onVDw tya 12 todw rpp adyd 
or Maya) tb 


n> 1? px pA jay "y ws ipawn mno yoy idvAw wR .36 

noosa yoy y>unw inp >"x) 9 yaa ay t’ad Sunn asx man pom 
yapw onp AN pa xowid mwy aes 55 pod Sia ms nowna Ns 
> w nosy mnon yo pr xbw 1d meny Soom aN ox nino 
> amws i> avy sy sa gba pdy poop mynd pon Suad no 
8 Ino Dawa ‘ox ony > saws S59 np 2597 Sapa ory msn 


NT Ty 
apa ts s 
np anvanws pay xd wr xe. pm? ND WN) .37 
mwa xo ox owin xd ox won a" any ineKD 
mena 


Sap orpod oa ovya pro ond pre ona 20°77 On) .38 
noi maa 'yba wees opw mdr mo ow swam mya pwd 
saad yyroc ody ow poanw v’aa wer ons xD mwy xd on 
sma dy 7a mys Sov on myw pend) 05 oxen mer ow ow inpind 
mpo? porn? wy xed Soy anxm SoNn mr ow my on inva 
cow Sdpnnw 


OMS DWIX) ITI Vy AMEN. Obw maa AT oTNY IT b>) .39 
Nap 479 OY w ON ‘MPM VyN 


samay 83) 42.2 1 

.OID IT NAD INN .2 2 2 

733 VNINIY PUpY oN pad 2.2 3 
“Vy. yap 3m . .2 4 


214 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


xO an wry oT a> ionp> nan mD0> wt man" IPN "Wy .40 
pow nad 9 1 722 77 20N) SD DWE 


moo a> Sap mo 35 jon ober aye) mw. Tn wnws nD .41 


i 
mbia '@>y voap n> ‘pn o"y 
oy Sy ody am 


NST 


8 


spo Sy onan b> OD TY TIN DIDI) OW "NN DAN w .42 

VYT yaunD "OWD Ww IYIDW yap po ow ww ony JIT vd 

MND wrx oyan 4zox amps pyn ‘ms vy> pond oma mynd 
Syne Sy mde ont yo ski NUD DYIIN WX PS ON PyA 


ipa 


ny mbap powow onm 
yor> swmw> 8 Js nyd snd 
87 OND) ANT pay yo ans 
mow mee Se qwin bx nD 0 
o5d> aw ‘od qasim (iw .w 
9 ont 5 Tow oD dmNd 
oms 55> ody wown ond sox 
Sasi 42> oynaw onp on 7 
ION PT 1") Ow "9 ‘ON ANA 
DD? ‘2 DN] ANN ynND OTP AD 
qo. wd () OD INN 
ana Jax 


ody ibapy n’3 morn o"y 

Sy) omby oN miziaw NT 
vw ombsy aaym ony> oy 
S277 pM jy prayn mand 7a 


pan owd ons mpn .43 

bap) wp 'w yor Xda ody 
b> dyn oy Yy) OAT onYy 
sve ond) O72 98 ody ondon 
pmo ‘nay °° 48 AD WN 
boyd "DID Dy war [xn nys 
yom Ss 17orb) Gop>) ximw> x" 
nwowb ona pm ‘ww man pax 
mow mws bs win bs on 
p>drxd ood yaw nm (1 .v 
wowna wnad (iD 4 ona 
TDS INKY "9 ‘ON UDA 
Jina 48 mann pax Jody odiyd 
1) b>) 590 nad odi>> yon 
bapd "n>1 ym "BD °DM AyD 


MIND 2.21 

yD 33) 2.3 3 

‘n 59 3.353 

Mo Vyr....0yan' ON 2.3 4 
JT OR Ww...0NT 2 D5 





CHAPTER V 215 


J 


by rayw pay oy raid amp 
2yvys men on 


3x0 7'2 Seiwa ‘nn ‘von ys 
yok on 

ND pwr van mupn S"Dy 
oun 


S 

Ss win bs op 35 an 
oda ‘nminsn nw odys mur 
DS yp nb) ann Jax 495) 
Sava "OR ANN ynD oONp 
ans w'> ann bapb opnyy 
pdiys omox iw ‘nn idapw 
42> o@ray anA nep nono 
pod yaw ‘ody mann pax an 

op dmx 


sans qnad Sapa edi 44 
mwo> m’apn ‘ort oan nbon 
‘ina ons bsaw bape ane 
oy mows iw ‘say sox 
72 °Swm) aw ‘D972 San oamdyy 
snk ‘D737 nxn ‘ox 495) Cn 
2x) 


sayy prays sats amp .45 
imon xd) ond a MN OANA 
WS S520 1D) nen Wwyn-os NT 
Dippa ‘D725 ayo jn yow ans 
Onn 


~ 


CHAPTER VI 


PROPOSED TAKKANAH OF R. PEREZ 


The text of this proposed Takkanah was taken by Guede- 
mann (J. 263) from a Halberstam manuscript, which is 
now part of the Montefiore Library (Hirschfeld 130). 
We do not know whether the proposed Takkanah was 
ever approved by the Rabbis to whom it was sent. It 
consists of two sections, the first providing that any man 
might be compelled to undertake by a herem or oath, 
that he would not strike his wife again. He might be 
compelled to undertake this herem on the complaint 
either of the wife, herself, or of one of her near relatives. 
Secondly, it provided that if the husband refused to under- 
take such a herem, the Court should assign the wife alimony 
as if the husband were away. 


Guedemann’s text has been compared with a photograph 
of the manuscript and only one slight change has been 
necessitated. Nevertheless the text is included here for 
the sake of completeness. 


om on Sew oa mms by yow prio wey mia nyw dip 
yom anes mond ain pays wsn oben cn) omw mond omy 
> awn Den" on Seen we ow mond xbw soy anno NIT 
> yw "PND wala pms vo nn Syvw wat prey °a7a4 "yw 
at Sy mpyix Sen map w oD yoy mM INN TDD IN!S TADoNw 
Sewn we 55 Sy ads ann Apna win job mbap qn nny? yx 
py n> odyopn m@anpo ans nwpad ww oinvs nvpad orna pid 
Mey? x5 7D °D 1D TT WN yen FIT ww oyD FIT inex mond xbw 
nym onbad wp nx a ws mayd) wx oD ww wy’ on) Oxcea 
Npy¥ IX TWNT Npys ow sanw ops ims bw 7’ad nya ad tam ep 
NT ws open mua amo D> AMaD Db mum md piond mManp 
som mon mdbya y>em ds. mn md ipo maqy °p> apy Att 
wayn ornaynd pasa awws ody wma wD’ oN) API 4773 
aaost pbs 3’ ya pap os ode at op nop 





CHAPTER VI 217 


TRANSLATION 


The cry of the daughters of our people has been heard 
concerning the sons of Israel who raise their hands to strike 
their wives. Yet who has given a husband the authority 
to beat his wife? Is he not rather forbidden to strike any 
person in Israel? Moreover R. I(saac) has written in a 
responsum that he has it on the authority of three great 
Sages, namely R. Samuel, R. Jacob Tam and R. Isaac), 
the sons of R. Meir, that one who beats his wife is in the 
same category as one who beats a stranger. Nevertheless 
have we heard of cases where Jewish women complained 
regarding their treatment before the Communities and no 
action was taken on their behalf. 

We have therefore decreed that any Jew may be com- 
pelled on application of his wife or one of her near relatives 
to undertake by a herem not to beat his wife in anger 
or cruelty or so as to disgrace her, for that is against Jewish 
practice. 

If anyone will stubbornly refuse to obey our words, 
the Court of the place to which the wife or her relatives 
will bring complaint, shall assign her maintenance according 
to her station and according to the custom of the place 
where she dwells. They shall fix her alimony as though 
her husband were away on a distant journey. 

If they, our masters, the great sages of the land agree 
to this ordinance it shall be established. 

Perez b. Elijah. 


CHAPTER VII 


TAKKANOT OF THE RHINE COMMUNITIES 
TEXT A. THIRTEENTH CENTURY 


In discussing the Takkanot of R. Gershom (above 
Chapter I) we noticed that one of the sources of these 
Takkanot are the ordinances of the Rhine communities 
into which they were incorporated. The text in which 
those Takkanot are incorporated among the other ordinances 
of the Communities, is the one printed in the responsa 
of R. Meir b. Baruch (ed. Prague, 1022). We will refer 
to that text as M (Heb. »).! Another recension of ordi- 


1 The same text occurs with a few insignificant changes, most of 
which are corruptions, in Res. R. Moses Mintz, 102. No note has been 
taken of the variants of that text except where it shows a clear improve- 
ment. 

After the above was in press J received through the courtesy of Dr. 
Hirschfeld of the Library of the Jews College, London, a photograph 
of a Montefiore Ms. (Cat. Hirschfeld, 146) which contains another 
version of text M. The variants from this text which will be referred 
to below as MA, are given below under the Hebrew notation No. 

This text is of great interest as it verifies definitely certain hypotheses 
set forth above. It proves beyond question that Rosenthal (Monats- 
chrift 45.245) was right in maintaining that the synod of Mayence 
which adopted the ordinances found in M, took place in 1220, and 
that R is the work of a later synod held in Speyer in 1223. It is im- 
possible to suppose with some of the earlier writers on the subject that 
pnn in M is to be emended into wpnn, since the reading of M is now 
corroborated by MA. 

Moreover this text does not contain the Takkanot of R. Gershom, 
thus showing that originally M, or the ordinances adopted in Mayence 
in 1220, did not contain them, but that they were added by the sub- 
sequent synod held in the following generation. MA is a transcript of 
the original decision taken in 1220; M, on the other hand, is a transcript 
of those decisions as they were re-worked at the synod held between 
1240 and 1250. Hence M contains immediately after the Takkanot 
adopted in 1220, those adopted at the later synod. MA does not con- 
tain them, but a reference to them is made, obviously by the later 
scribe who knew of the second synod. These ordinances are added 





4 


CHAPTER VII 219 


ances of the Rhine Communities was published by Rosen- 
thal from a Halberstam manuscript which is now in the 
possession of the Montefiore Library (Cat. Hirshfeld 130). 
We shall call that text R (Heb. 1). There is a third re- 
cension which is to be found in a Zunz manuscript, which | 
too is at present part of the Montefiore Library, (136 
of the same catalogue). This last text we shall call Z 
(Heb. ¥). 

Aside from these three sources which contain practically 
complete texts, part of the Takkanot, namely the sections 
dealing with the matter of Halizah, are quoted in a res- 
ponsum of R. Meir b. Baruch. This responsum is not 
found in any of the collections, but is quoted at length 
in a Bodleian manuscript (Hunt. 221, Neub. 820, Heb. ?) 
as well as in the Yam shel Shelomo (Yebamot 4.18) of R. 
Solomon Luria (Heb. 9), and in a responsum of R. Moses 
Mintz (no. 10), referred to in the Hebrew variants as Y. 

In the following pages the three texts are printed in 
parallel columns where they differ considerably from each 
other; but where the differences are not of outstanding 
importance, the Zunz text is taken as standard, since as 
will presently be shown it is probably the oldest of the texts. 
The different readings from the other texts, as well as the 
readings suggested by the responsum of R. Meir, are given 
as variants. The Takkanot of R. Gershom are not printed 
at the end of M, but it must be borne in mind that in that 
text they appear immediately before the concluding para- 
graph. After the names of the signers, there follows 
in M the text of a Takkanah of a synod of the following 
generation which has been printed in full. 

A cursory examination of the parallel texts as they are 
arranged below, whether in the original or in translation, 


after a reference is made to the ordinance of R. Samuel b. Meir and R. 
Tam against informers and that of R. Tam providing for the restitu- 
tion of the dowry in case of the death of the wife. (Above, Chapter 
IV, Texts A and B). Indeed it is definitely stated that the Takkanot 
of 1220 were re-ordained at the later synod. The text reading as 


follows: 
92 mvp Pan m7 an odvn Pan oa bon wInnn MnoIpA IrMmaKND i pM 


yonNM and ow bap b>) yao AMT 


220 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


will show that the three recensions are the work of three 
distinct synods. The differences between the recensions 
are not merely matters of reading, but there are actual 
differences of ordinances, many sections which occur in 
one being missing in one or both of the others. The main 
body of the ordinance is, however, identical in all three. 
This shows that the later synods in the main re-enacted the 
Takkanot of the earlier synods, but added such new ones 
as appeared to be required by new conditions. In this the 
Jewish synods were not unlike the Church councils. We 
find in them, too, that the same enactment were enacted 
in council after council. 


M is definitely dated, Mayence, 1220. R has been 
proven by Rosenthal (M. G. W. J. 45.244 ff) to have 
been enacted at Speyer in 1223. The date and place of 
the synod which enacted Z remains to be determined. 

In section three the names of the three communities are 
given in the following order in M; Mayence, Worms, Speyer. 

in R; Speyer, Worms, Mayence. 
in Z; Mayence, Worms, Speyer. 

It is to be assumed a priori that the council would name 
first the city in which they happened to meet. We know 
that this was the case with council of 1220 (M), since that 


is stated to have taken place at Mayence, and the name of | 


that city heads the list. It is on the ground that Speyer 
heads the list in R, that Rosenthal assumes that the synod 
of 1223 took place in that city. Since Mayence heads 
_the list in Z, we are led to suppose that it, like M, was com- 
posed at Mayence. 


The settlement of the date of the synod is not so easy. 
One of the signers of Z was R. Baruch b. Samuel. He was 
also one of the signers of M, but he died in 1221 before 
synod of that established text R was convened. Since he 
is named among the singers of Z, that could not have been 
enacted after 1221. But it is highly improbable that the three 
synods would have followed one another as closely as 1220, 
1221, 1223. Itisfar more likely that synod responsible for 
Z took place before synod of 1220 (M). 








CHAPTER VII 221 


This is further corroborated by a study of the texts. 


But one example need be cited here. 


MS 
OY 252 4n OS OTN OF ON 


IMIN POD’ ON 7) NN TODD AN 
> yrnp> onon ny ian 
w ON) PDEAw TDODIN yaw) 7wWEN 
son 1b yop Poan mp. ony 

mynawds Sion xm pwbom 


Z 


If a man threatens his neigh- 
bor, in the presence of wit- 
nesses saying, ‘‘I will cause 
you loss of money, by giving 
information to Gentiles,’’ if 
then that Jew suffers harm 
at the hands of Gentiles, 
the Court shall compel the 
intimidator to pay, whatever 
amount the victim claims 
under oath. If there are wit- 
nesses to the amount of the 
damage, the informer must 
pay that. The informer shall 
be declared unfit to take an 
oath. 


Section 3 reads: 


a) 
May) 72524 and o7N on ON 


IMS TOD’ oN LID) 19 TPoSAdS 
»D yrnpd> ono J’. wm TT 
w’ ON) PDD mod DPM yaww 
~o Ton 19 ynB opm ony 
rp yan os poor omy vw on 

myriad) motyd dipp 


M 


If a man threatens his 
neighbor in the presence of 
witnesses, that he will cause 
him loss of money, if then 
that Jew suffer loss,the Court 
shall compel the intimida- 
tor to pay whatever amount 
is claimed by the victim 
under oath. If there are 
witnesses that he suffered 
loss the informer must pay 
immediately. If there are 
witnesses that he gave in- 
formation against his neigh- 
bor he shall be considered 
unfit to act as a witness or 
to take an oath. 


Even a cursory reading of the two texts will show that 
Z is the older. The word pwbom of Z, is replaced in M 
by pwomw ony w on. The words omy w on are 
evidently an insertion, following as they do on the words 
ToS oy won) of the preceding line. The insertion 
was made because it was feared that Z might be misunder- 
stood. The oath of an alleged victim of denunciation was 
sufficient to compel the defendant to pay, if there was 


222 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


circumstantial evidence against the informer, e. g. if he 
made threats of denunciation. It is not deemed sufficient 
to make him unfit to take an oath. To deprive one of 
his right of taking an oath in a Jewish court, the ordinance 
demands testimony which would be accepted according 
to the Talmud. 

While in this case it is clear that the original text of M 
read differently from Z, because we find the same reading 
in R as we do in M;; in other cases we cannot be certain 
that the text of M has not been changed by later writers. 
Indeed there is good reason to believe that later synod 
did revise this text. In the concluding paragraph of M, 
we read: ‘We have renewed now, in the year 4980 
(1220), what our ancestors ordained many years ago, 
here at Mayence, by a severe herem, except for the or- 
dinances of R. Gershom, the Light of the Dispersion, b. 
Judah, which are very many and are well-known and did 
not need renewal.” It is evident then, that the Takkanot 
of R. Gershom were not renewed at the synod of 1220. 
Yet just before this paragraph we find the complete list 
of the Takkanot of R. Gershom (see Part II, chapter 1). 
The Takkanot R. Gershom must have been inserted in 
the text at a later time. It is likely that those who in- 
troduced that change in the text, also introduced other 
changes. 

These changes appear to have been made in this Takkanah 
by the Rabbis of the generation after 1220. We find a 
Takkanah of theirs attached to M, forbidding the excommun- 
ication of any member of a Community exceptin the presence 
of tne Community. That Takkanah was ordained at 
Mayence, and probably for that reason, is attached to 
the text of M, which also was enacted there, rather than 
to R, which was enacted at Speyer. 

That this later synod was held after the year 1238, is 
evident the fact that neither R. Eliezer b. Joel Ha-Levi 
(who died in 1235) nor R. Eleazar b. Judah (author of the 
Rokeah, d. in 1238) is mentioned in connection with it. 

On the other hand there is mentioned among the signers 
of this Takkanah n™77ax. This is taken by Bruell to mean 


—_— = 


a 





CHAPTER VII 223 


R. Asher b. Yehiel, (Jarbuecher, VII 89). That, however, 
has been denied by A. Freimann, in his Ascher b. Yehiel 
(Frankfort, 1918) p. 7, note 8. The latter assumes the 
synod to have taken place about 1240, and as R. Asher 
was born about 1250, he could not have attended the synod. 

Now in 1241, R. Isaac Or Zarua carried on an active 
discussion with R. Judah b. Moses Ha-Kohen, R. Me- 
shullam b. David, and R. David b. Shealtiel, as to whether 
a woman who had been violated during the massacre 
at Frankfort in that year, might remain with her husband 
after the outrage (Or Zarua, I, 747; HOS 221, 222). 
It would appear then that at that time he was still in Ger- 
many. If the council took place about that time, we would 
have expected him, as the foremost scholar of Germany, 
to have attended it. 

It may be that this synod took place as late as the year 
1270. We know that was about the time of the death of 
R. Isaac b. Moses Or Zarua. It is likely that the three 
correspondents of his, R. David b. Shealtiel, Meshullam 
b. David, and R. Judah b. Moses Ha-Kohen, who were 
younger than he (HOS loc. cit.) survived him. In that 
case R. Asher b. Yehiel might have been present at the 
synod. We could still have to meet the difficulty of the 
absence of R. Meir b. Baruch from the council. We 
cannot therefore consider the matter definitely decided 
until more information is available regarding the lives of 
the members of the council. 

To return to synod Z, we have seen that it was the earliest 
of the synods whose enactments have been preserved. 
But it was not the first of the synods of the Rhine communi- 
ties. There is incorpaqrated in it the Takkanah regarding 
Halizah, which we learn from R, was ordained by a synod 
under R. David of Muenzberg in the year 1196; R. David, ap- 
parently, reorganized the Rhine confederation immediately 
after the Third Crusade. This Takkanah is the oldest 
part of the Ordinances of the Rhine Communities. 

But there are other traces of the synods which were 
held between the years 1196 and the time of the Z-synod. 
Text Z appears on examination to be the result of a develop- 


224 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


ment. Just as we have seen in the case of the Takkanot 
of R. Gershom, (above, chapter I) and in the case of the 
Takkanot of R. Tam (above, chapter V) so in the case of 
the Takkanot of the Rhine Communities, must we assume 
that the writers of the original text had in their minds a 
definite order of arrangement of their various orders. It 
is only when additions were made, that the order originally 
intended was obscured. Thus if we examine the text of 
the Rhine Communities, we will find that the arrangement 
was along the following lines: 

I. Miscellaneous injunctions regarding Biblical andRabbinic 
prohibitions, paragraph 1. 

II. The power of the Court in the matter of summons and 
the new law of evidence in cases of denunciation to Gentiles, 
paragraphs 2 and 3. . 
III. Taxes, paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 9. 

IV. Attempts to influence Jewish communal life through 
non-Jewish agencies, paragraphs 10, 11, 15, 16 19. 

V. Halzah, paragraph 20. 

Now there are several insertions of foreign Takkanot in 
the midst of these, for instances the ordinance against 
sumptuous dinners is inserted in the midst of those regard- 
ing the relations of Jews to Gentiles. It is noteworthy 
that almost all of the basic ordinances of the outline just 
described are common to the three texts, Z, M, R. But the 
insertions in M are usually other than those in Z. R. 
adopts the insertion both of M and Z. 

These facts tend to show that there must have been an 
earlier version of the Takkanot of the Rhine Communities 
which in all likelihood contained only the basic Takkanot 
described under the five headings above. 

It is thus clear that we have before us in the three texts, 
Z, M and R, a record of more than half a century of synodal 
activity in the Rhine Communities. We can trace the 
development of the work inaugurated immediately after 
the Crusade by R. David of Muenzberg, till the time of 
R. David b. Shealtiel. The larger aspects of this interesting 
phenomenon in Jewish life, have been discussed in Part 
I, Chapter IV. 








a) 
pa mp) Aven py 


yon mod op ponm 
Py PR ad) yun pri 
o>>ow nyw dip yor 
wea ondy wy na 
WIM wwpN wan 
nyrpian m>osay cr 
oinnn wm ypn 

FloD ots md xbw 
x"> ryand imyp xd 
msno>) aDw msnn> 
057 

mana ow xdy 
muy xd os on by 
pand doy ow cy 

sd on or dy 
pa 

by mpbw Say xd 
on 

xd) mmpy my? xbdi 
myo my 


CHAPTER VII 


Pt 
Van nd’hn3] WAN Wr 


onn7a by o'nm 1m 
moa ja >> 7ws 

922 madbna 47> xb 

soybn wana qo wh 


mya ona 
maya > a xd 

oop oD 
xd oupr mby xh 


ayn pys xdy ayna 

oy ws Sow xd 
sy nad cpa ner 
mor Syaony 

FD wand md xd) 
“Dv omxnoa o8 °D 
oan msnndy 

MS OTN yD Nd 
xd ox on Sw mana 


may ow Py wy 
mann 

q75 ona mr yds 
pn 


by mpbw Sox xbdy 
on 

Jo) pa anv xdy 

xd) mnpy my? xd) 
myo my 

orn jm n> my xdy 
naw. 7p 


225 


x 
DY WNT FAONNTS «1 


nos nyiawa wn am 
pyn So) yen no-pna 
moa ja by maa 

Inve oy Son xdow 
Syapnw ay mna> wa 
yor 

rand ADD md wd 
sDv mxnnod> on 9 
sama opm nxn 
man 5"y 

xd) opp pp” Ndi 
xd) ayna xd upr mb, 
ayn py 

baa >> xb) 


om awe any ano xbw pad ran ns 3porn .2 


TDS? ON 0 NS TODS SIS O TY 52 41730 NS OTN OF ON .3 


JS myn xd) wo 1 


Jnan> onnn snd xp? xd) myn mwy? xdy .xo Emyp mdz xdi 2 


pore 0 521.7 0 3 


a> pond ony 52 mand .o 4 


“JDO NS VDDD US .15 


226 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


27DaTw TOD yaw wre ~)>D ynp> onom m& Nam NTT MNS 
ayaws Sop sp spwbom .amonm 1b ye soe aD Oy & om 
Nxmoa pT mwy zon ywand ynpw say mbapn b> orp 6m 
ans vy> ommi wey> ami s.e7bwa) xwDITNA) 

say 120d oxen Sapm yr xd 1ontppy opp 1b ww rn .4 
oon bya ayn 12007 

ym 167025) FDI 1593) 4D ox 7D 1d 14prw Sapd isyaw on .5 
Dv isimy) aAyiawd>) mty> Sop iz apy Sy yawn any 1b wD 
Sun yaw 


I) a) RS 


Sy OTN TNwE Nd) = OTN THD? NDI og 
sxnaasrwpsonnjo «oS:awa pon yw wxy 
bon so. bom axna aa 
Oy 8 wx AD 


my ote pwo> on. oN bon oom 


7 


poms bod yan os aw row yoann 
mar ows pm pudwo  mbn w 4a 42 °> yn 
mona ow ama ow ome bd np ow Apo 
bapa b> ry wnne => 15 wnne 


conond "3 mam 2 .1"3 MN 1B" WD 1 

<PODM MDD .D 2 

JVan OX POET. SPDEAY .o 3 

“TD wD 4 

omy @ oon). ayiawdy nroy> Sip xa nan ox podnw omy ew on .o 5 


FIDD 


ayiaw> Sipe mm popme 

PA TWIN aoe 7 1.0 6 

mbap "32 mand pot ney apy xv payo mbnp ‘20 pt Sapn .o 7 
N¥DD OD MyEy. 

“1 vy aw my swro bipdp yp ws sy mbapm $5 212 NM WD 8 
“VYyT aw NW wR. InMy pm sy mbzpa boa 2 A 

.mopn $55 atu .p 9 


dosx oomonn abs omppin 
Rab) =P) 

0D Dw 7 

oonp> ots yar ont 4 

op jm> 421 42 1b ww 

.0d yop jd 491 4D 


wv Sapm ym . bapd yor on. 
10D WNT IMs . 


5 wo 2] WIV TW Ys0 DD OTN OW yan’? ON) .4 


Aa 
a) 


Ae) 
2 
oT 
ae) 
dD 
Dd 


2 


10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 


onan inp xd 

ND LINN 7D [anna 
by yauon ovwa " 
onam mobo ams 
ow ia xb ynnm oyw 
noo ooN owD 795 
any 727 xd) nduoan 


pp "Ssw Sapm ox 
mm 55> NW TIM 1D 
bapn by rd omy 
onp> orm ams ym? 
bapa JN w>xw 7wr 
2onipna wy pab way 
hyn) orxw om pd 
pain bxd nn anya 
NPS IND pri dw nN 
may awe $2) rrano 
mip boa mupn by 
ox mbnpm b> a 
on won wpa NA 
00> AMD nDD NT? 
saym podwd osx aon 
wp Ssxd w irmpno 
arnyt °»> onp> 


CHAPTER VII 


- 


T7? ON pl DPA 
bapa SD is Inq 
yoy Innw xdi paw 
onnma np xd 
yaunon _" 8"D ANN 
wx ona mobon 
yr xd inom oy ym 
727 ow mpd oxwn 
‘ay xd) ona yan 
wm ots 55) onan 
.odwa an oy 


DIN Ow 77 oN 
1s oD bapa jab inpw 
vmb> maw rat 55 
prem ims ym Sapa by 
Sapm im>xw ws ms 
pad wy wa SapA IS 
pRw jms cd opr 
sat bw ynya oyn 
may) ax? xd om 
pana am wx mipn 
ox) mbapn b> stn 
on won wos naw 
son> aM DD TP 
why ubap on qn 
pw ox nian mows 
w oan nay’ onN 
ampdadi ionpd 


227 


Es 
xm oxbw pa Sapa 


W713 


> wy Tn ON) .9 
bapa by mayan ow 
O27D IN DON DD 
mo Sap> im ons 
wD Sap IS m>Rww 
pew p"'yx pad wy 
~om at pyn 
mo. dw nx wan xD 
pwnd 7" wy IPDDw 
DTN OTN OW Nay’ ON 
ampends ionp> w 


amnaw b> orvbon $505 wn «10 
p’'y 7ax pny S5ow eamna nods sin poyw on D1 «11 
bSanom on mm 7D00 mwyy om NNOINND) NNoOwD) TIA NT OD 
yp w Ssaw ns Tou sw one Sy poryw rm aw 855 um 
yaw ort p"y muyd vw 


OIPHA ND 2 
naw $53.4. 4, 
n'b1nb's 
15 55m .4 ps 


onnn> ynna yo .8p 1 


1373 Dy) OYRwW DS ND 3 


yo 15 
apn 17 


228 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


a) 


- 
py xd pinwhs pm 
aay Sst oy xd) on 
byoxd nay JX myo 
by wy (xD) mnwdy 
munn ma. ww yw 
mney n> cay 
myo im xdy camo 
m>os ay 


x 
xd pinwh pri .12 


Sew oy edo om oy 
say xd) myo nay 
md xb mnwd dioxd 

dx xb. myn 


nyt xba oan nad ww oxema oon owns 15 ips ompm .13 
apa 4qoyo ym os OINT oe on oD simmana an Nd) 2>npa 


pana own m >> 


maa wrx ano xd 

aw xd ox non 
woen onys drpn 
yrat oyow = Sapm 
bap xdi yew wy 
WITP. TDA ON °D 


ma o7N 078d) .14 

avy xd on non 
woen onyp Sapa 
wy Prat iyow Sapm 
ots Soap xd) ween 1d 
sxra ud) ama Nb 
ora xd) navn xd) 


lyin a 


» by woo roy) ow oN pre xd) 15 


cond sno ow mby xd) .16 


sd) wr xd mwy? xd) 
Ik me myo mews 
VY? ON IN OT Pp’ ON 
Wand Aor DxXI0D8 19 
DA Ow) IN wy dd 
sm ary a ww nab, 
ora ots bap xbdy 
bapa 4s bona nysp 
mey> apd ody 
Nay (D7 


we xd my xd) 17 
mwa nyo mwr xd 
ops 19 YT ON IN 
byox5 and sx 
nadyr > ows x wy 
am mh "2 ON 


2xema roan .kol mwyd pro 


apn b> .p 2 


05> apyoa xD Sapa oon ene xd) oe Ow Sy Onn ow Nd .D 3 


ob> Ioypa .1 4 


WNNDYD) OANA win mt SD ww 5 





CHAPTER VII 229 


58 bnp nyt xba op o7 ova wr ‘sta ots S>pn dy) «18 
17D Ty axva PD SSa wa 's7 bw wren ova Sbannd dia jin 
bapa mwaa sin nbyod ya p22) mwa wen bw ow ova 4S 
anys p> SSpnad dirpy Sapr os bbennd doa wsw wdn pint om 
N?) pqa jaw sow leo onsxd ws ad dy mdy> 2ndr 19 
oan» by ain onata ibs $5 pom inn: 
py b> ws orn irdy boa pw unmipn mrowb siyyy 40n .20 
nono n> wwaw oom md Heb 7px mow nom 0D] °D 6nDIN 
mad abn ain ba para yp pmax ndonn om) myprp adbya 
‘ya Ww myn ory pd sip>rp inns 85) inspp D7 ON) INN AN 
moan Sy) roa Sy ya ionywa atobd uw povdovon gon ona 
19 mowd mn 3px w2bsowK po om at we xd) oon nyt op 
myo pron 16x52) ars xba ino ns iste io many 140702; 
mbya now avo yin ows cans pion> ond > w moms not on 
ww mo youd ab ow izapam a7 Sixwd oxen pri is 82a pom 
amaw meam orn 1970 7705) yyad onond ise ops jo aTPA 


wap nyt xd. wp 1 

Saw ord wr mx ed oso Ste ores ots mx? edi wp 2 

aapr win .1 3 

bax. moansn omupna 55 sank .o oNnona masse moan nyednm mpm 4 
939 myeynAIAT Py mpn san snow asp by Spnd mp omwr ns *now 
»® by onna py Sy mbnpm 55 bap 42 .w'nn Ata ppt a> ayn mbyod mains wn 
nD Tp mow moby by way %D yr Oo” nwa.) nw pNaxMND WT 4 
395 7 on .amobwa mpnz nxt Apnyi ma ws 43 72 oD NaWwn ANI 
by om ma yeso nw ovnwe $2) .nawnn oNyn2 ov ow TIDDpPRA ODD SIND INN 
mm prp> *duxn siao2 open pm pn 7B 

95.0) oman yi ‘p> [y'pnna y] 2OpNNA Nona .y .D.2 DIT WN ON .D 5 
ory wmipn now wes on ampn >'n [o'na 
.OWIN 9 ANY. 6 
on? PR .D 7 
omry msyip> pom .o coxa ya wn [ey sow .No] ora ipo .o 
Rie i]t) ee DN. D1 .Y 22. 
Syyn ond wy a spyn on op 
orm orn by . norm pa oan pa. 
HO Sw. csssees xd) WD 
“PS ONT) OD 
DOIN JO oO .DOD .y .D 2 
MN 5 .D 
“5 mxo pion xdar .p 
3 yawn moIM wy... 
TN) TNT OX ODINT SI . 18 
Pa .y 219 


230 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


os aynnm> oan ans qbn 2mpam aims xba pibnd ind w aw 
emwy> OX AY TONY IY si 027 477 ON) 3NINS Vya NIA 


DIN ISD 


po pownd amy sow omar aow umw prow doa 7rrs on .21 
snava boxd ond ww anyd 


woy mwa xba invyd yr 1o-pwnd oxwn ony a xd 9nn .22 


agypia ostym dyan a avy ox imbmp 


Sy ann or b> mnawon Sip ow amp rrand onx Ton Ndi 03 


a) 


DP DDD PRY Opn 

ontond> mo iniw mo. 
PpDD pRw mpunn dw 
b> ond pre wopnn 
NWI ANWD INP? 4D 
ay wb) om) Pim 
opbnd om) ynow) 
x5 ox (pun “tabnb) 
sd yrn wav wD 
(Spm van anyon m9 
> Sapa oxrw mpna 


p'y mbnpn b> bap 4D .y 


4 


Swynm wand winon 
apm yoxw mp °BD 


PRY Dp = .25 
Dunw. ma op PDD 
mod Np? mprun sw>> 
now) ~yom> preww 
xd os omtodnd aun 
ssd yp wown wD 
pipod wun amom nD 

apr oxen 


mn cymr 3 nb w oo 


NNT 5 


oS 


IY WIA ON .24 
MpPIs W wwyD wand 
apm moNw MD DD 


oy 41 


bon wm .o .nodin mpam uy 2 2 
2 ts nba aedna mms Tw) 2b WWE «3.0 3 
«oa mmm Syd py) art arp p’y mbapa boa unw ona 
QI AX Tow Ty ind w AX OPN NT OOND .D IND 2 4 


My Wy 2.0 5 


JS ornon.mwyds .y 2.0 6 


PND WIN .D 7 


sma bon pi nos ow wy xd) ns 


Xd) .D 9 
pry .p 10 


dap mwa xbw moipon awa). 11 
JT5u7 ND JPN TWND .D 12 


CHAPTER VII 


231 


WW °pam Dd 395° (xd) os 2prta Ndr vine xdbw nr) .26 
opam p> smd i5b> opom on yb ann wd 


A) 
yor yap’ omy bo 


b> pr cor mb 
N71po2 pioy’ Tno>na 
1S WIT IN TWA 
SNN) W277 TNs inb> 
xP oxdbw pl Mynon 
swan inde xd ons 
OTT ’y x’D mad 
27 Wwe Sy oT IN 
Cs ys pom iwrman 
normal maT Nd) 

TNPI) WOR. 1aw 4X 
Dpvavoraxnyiayy 
Laven) ona win bon 


We. oA WIN on 
N39) moan py> dip 
naa ‘> 7D Syd py 
(ow 
py ww oIpoar .29 
Py 121 7'a bw orn 
‘oy mon nupn dyd 


(np 
“Dy wpn nupnn b> 
nny woam)ooann 


pnw m9 vb A "pnna 
moa p> OTpD "ND Ip 
DANA NYIOA MD OW 
som muapn 7a> son 
aN ov wan Sy 
Tereeiry minty ali i OW ra 
myr ym IN. ma0n 

wand 7x17 Ndi 


ce} 
by” NY oD) .27 


pioy’ nobna pipyd 
ww indb> DD AT “NA 
NPD IN WIT Is 195n 
sn oy 553 mwa ION 
yoo INN) maton 
pus ap xdby aba 

(Mn FD 'y) 


pow ots 521 .28 
xd) moan ADS 199 
DN °D noon maa 7d 


xd) TwpNa IN NITMIpA 


Ip 


ms 


ow Nayw on So 
b> v2 NT oMpn 
772 aw on mbzpn 
spond am oD wan 
sown bo1 qbnd ino 
qb °DD JAM wnypn 
227 


sone xdy np 


WO ON DTN DW .1 D2 


217 WP .b 3 


232 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


a) 


"a prypxion 7 
pionop 

wei Ssny 72 FDP 
mdr 

> 7wWR T"'2 apy” 

| 377 72 opr ards 
TP 

YT IN 

by Ssvow "2 anow 

Seow a aryds 

Sr nyow "2 7M 

Sxiow 7a 4723 

197 yn) 7a Oxy 

pny "2 1n3 

p70129 72187’ pn 

jaan moby 7"2 pny 

Seinw "2 PND 

in27 SNy 7"a PND 

DDN "2 pwow 

by nyow va aryds 


WII 2 Jan» apy” 
om pny 

om Syiow én pny? 

pyow 7’ mw. 

j2189 7'2 wnnD 


>. 
Divn>p 73 77 


osary "a DY 


“WX J’ apy 

3’97 72 JopT ay >s 
m7 

“197 (aN 

Sew 73 onow 

Seow "a ays 

nyow "2 yn 


W237 yn 72 Sey 
pny’ "2 yn 

IN -7'2 pm 
mow "2 pny 
Syinw "2 PND 
inant ONY 7"2 PND 
DIDS "2 pwow 
nyow aa aryds 


15 pny "3 apy 
bn obwr "2 pny 


pyow "2 a7 
]2IN7 -7"'3 Wenny 


@ 


Js 
nondp 72 77 


wei Seiny 7’2 Apr 
yada 

bm Ww "2 apy 

jpn ATP va aryds 


"YT ODN 
Seinv "2 aMow 
byiow a’ aryds 

wow 73 yn) 

byw 12 7172 
Imam yn) 7’a Oxy 
pny? "2 yn) 

12189 7’ pin 
ja27 moby 7"a pny 
byw 72 ND 
nom bxy 7’ px 
DIDS 7"2 pyow 
penw "a aryds 
TP 7"2 AY 

bm pny 1235 72 apy 


pop pbp 


mpn 729 ammo by As onnn p’y ds mupn wan 4D 25nN) 

vy xd Sapm oon bapa men xba ons ow aan my aby mw 
ox ovyi> wind ps Sapa ow add may on. ann men xba on 
mpm 72 ONT ps mpnm Sy warm xd ym aqd oa aNw WDD" 
Den2xw 392 77 A 7AN ,Y") OFAN 73 pny’ "nD TpA wMAND 
1727 Aw) 7" AY IIA Awe wat ya ATT I was j2 adwo br 


ONM wDD7 KwDIN puyo xTPSW Sap Soy ym 


abaya oat ‘na eed onpon nowna bax Seow 217 ‘na ann pnym yD 1 


"Owiny va, pnyn 


p73 73 oD nw Sy snows pr mNxXD) nN mpnn 2 





v, 


1. When the leaders 
of the people gather- 
ed together it was 
decreed under oath 
with a scroll of the 
Torah? in hand and 
all entered the 
Coyenant, 

a. That no child of 
_ the covenant shall 
eat with his wife in 
the days of her puri- 
fication,? until she 


CHAPTER VII 


TRANSLATION 


R 


We, the undersigned 
have decreed with 
thescrolloftheTorah 
in hand; 

m. that no child of 
the Covenant shall 
dress after the man- 
ner of the Gentiles ;3 
now wear sleeves; 
d. no one shall have 
long hair after the 
fashion of non- 
Jews; 


233 
M 

“The staff has 

sprouted’’4 


and we have _ be- 
come associated and 
bound and we have 
decreed under pain 
of excommunication 
and curse and while 
the scroll of the 
Torah was being 
held that 

b. Nomanshall lend 


t In Rabbinic law one usually takes an oath by holding in one’s 


hand either a scroll of the Torah or phylacteries. 


As the herem is 


a public oath it was announced in the same manner. 
2 There were some Rabbis who distinguished in regard to tne days 


of the impurity of a woman after menstruation, between the actual 
period of menstruation and the seven days of purification thereafter. 
While the general opinion was that so long as the ritual bath had 
not been taken the status of the woman was unchanged, others thought 
that the seven days being added only Rabbinically, their impurity was 
less rigorous than that of the others. Rosenthal believes that our 
Takkanah tried to establish the authority of the German Rabbis in 
this regard as against the French Rabbis. Apparently he believes 
that the more lenient opinion was that of the French scholars. But 
in this he is not quite exact. For while it is true that those who held 
the less rigorous view were mainly French stholars yet their argu- 
ments are disposed of by no less a French authority than R. Tam, 
(See Sabbath 13b, Tosafot ad loc.). His view is identical with that 
taken by R. Eleazar in his Rokeah (Laws of Niddah). Compare also 
R. Eliezer b. Nathan Niddah (Raben 535) who seems to hold a more 
lenient view in regard to this matter than R. Tam. 

3 Extravagance in dress is a constantly recurring subject for Com- 
munal Ordinances as well as for enactments of Mediaeval Church coun- 
cils. Gaudy clothes were peculiarly dangerous for Jews, because be- 
sides the expenses which they entailed, they aroused the jealousy of 
the Gentiles and gave them reason to believe that they were not op- 
pressing the Jews sufficiently. (See Guedemann, II. Note XIV). 

4 Ezekiel 7.10, 


234 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


i 


has bathed at the 
proper time; 

b. that no one shall 
lend money to his 
neighbor except with 
the understanding 
that both will share 
equally in the losses 
as well as in the 
profits,‘in the man- 
ner described by 
OUTAIMASTErS 


. R 
c.nooneshall shave 
his beard either 
with a razor, or in 
such a manner as 
approximates the 
ellect (OLw as 1az0L- 
a. nor may one eat 
with one’s wife in the 
days of her puri- 
fication until she 
bathes at the proper 
time; 


M 


another money ex- 
cept on the under- 
standing that both : 
will share equally 
in the losses as well 
as in the profits. 

e. No one shall put 
his wine in the ves- 
sels of Gentiles un- 
less they are properly 
purified; No one 
shall permit a Gen- 


* The arrangement mentioned here is known in the Talmud as 
the one of Sura. Two men entered a partnership, the one supplying 
the capital, the other supplying the work. The profits and losses 
were to be shared. The Mishna (Baba Mezia 5.4) prohibits the prac- 
tice, unless the worker gets something more of the profits or something’ 
less of the losses than the owner of the capital. The principle is that 
in such a case half of the capital is a loan to the worker and a half a 
bailment with him. For the half of the capital the profits of which 
the worker gets, cannot but be considered a loan. The other half, the 
profits of which are to go to the owner, are entrusted to the worker to 
use for the benefit of the owner, and thus become a trust fund. If 
the worker gets only the same income as his partner, it will appear that 
he works for the trust fund in return for the kindness of the owner in 
lending him the money. That would be usury. Doubtless our Tak- 
kanah contemplates in speaking of an equal division of both profits 
and loss some advantage to the worker as is enjoined by the Talmud. 
This is what is meant “by permission according to the word of his 
masters’’. No layman would know how to draw up a legal contract 
in such a case. 

The system was used extensively as a fiction to evade the Talmudic 
laws of usury in the Middle Ages. Thus if A wanted to lend money to 
B at interest, he would draw up a contract making half of the loan a 
trust which the borrower was to invest in the interest of the lender. 
That was permissible if the contract gave the borrower some advantage. 
There would then follow an additional agreement whereby the worker 
would agree to pay a stipulated amount instead of tne chance gain. 
As there were no limits to the amount that might be stipulated, it 
was easy to make it cover a proper rate of interest. There were other 
even more common ways of evading the law. Some of them are re- 
ferred to in RFL 56, HOS 202, Or Zarua, Baba Kamma, 202. 


Z 


c. that no one shall 
cut his hair in non- 
Jewish fashion,’ or 
shave his beard 
either with a razor 
or in such a manner 
as approximates the 
effect of a razor;? 
_d. nor shall one 
wear long hair. 


CHAPTER VII 


R 


b. nor may one lend 
money to his fellow 
except on the under- 
standing that both 
will share in losses 
as well as in profits; 
e. nor shall one put 
his wine in a flask 
of Gentiles unless he 
has purified the flask 


235 


M 


tile to make 
wine; 

g. Nor shall one eat 
what is cooked by 
Gentiles; 

h. nor shall one act 
deceitfully, or clip 
the coins. 


his 


properly ;3 
f. nor shall he per- 


To cut the hair after the fashion of the Greeks was prohibited 
in Rabbinic times. See Baba Kamma 83a, Sotah 49a, Tosefta Sabbath 
7:1, Sifra Leviticus 18:3. 


2 Shaving the beard is Biblically prohibited, Leviticus 19.27. 
That was interpreted as applying only to shaving with a razor, but 
the Rabbis generally regarded shaving ‘‘as close as a razor’’ as permitted 
(Shulhan Aruk Yoreh Deah, 181.10 and comp. Tosafot Shebuot 2b). Is 
is primarily the latter practice, against which the Takkanah is in all 
probability directed. That shaving was not uncommon can be seen 
from the repeated emphasis on the prohibition of it in Jacob Ha-Levi’s 
onvn yo nw 36, 50, 69. It is told of Maharil that he would on festive 
occasions shave his beard. The manner is not described by his Boswell, 
but we may be certain that he did not use a razor. 


3 Rosenthal believes that here, too, the enacment of the Takkanah 
had as its purpose the establishing of the view of the German as against 
the French scholars. We learn from Josafot (Aboda Zara 32b) that 
wnile it was generally held that the vessels which had been used by 
Gentiles were unfit for Jewish use as wine containers, the custom had 
become less rigorous. There were various attempts at justifying the 
use of gold and silver vessels and even earthen barrels or jugs after 
they had been used for impure wine, but no one looked upon these ex- 
planations as being more than attempted apologies for existing customs. 
It was but natural that even Rabbis who recognized the possibility 
of justifying the more lenient custom, should attempt to establish the 
severer law. In any case it cannot be said that the opinions were 
divided in this respect along national boundaries. The author of 
Rokeah takes as much cognizance of the lenient customs as do the 
French Tosafists themselves (See Rokeah 494). 


236 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Z: R M 


mit.a non-Jew to 
make his wine; 

g. nor shall one eat 
what is cooked by 
Gentiles ;? 

k. nor shall one deal 
in forbidden wine;3 
h. nor shall one en- 
gage in fraudulent 
transactions or coin- 
clipping ;4 

1. nor shall one per- 
mit a Gentile to put 
water into the cal- 
dron on the Sab- 
bath. 


2. If a man summon his fellow to court, the defendant 
may not delay for more than three days. 


1 That a Jew must not permit a Gentile to prepare his wine is 
taken as a matter of course in Tosafot (Aboda Zara 56b). The Tosa- 
fists argue that the question raised in the Talmud is whether the wine 
which is prepared by Gentiles may be sold. There could be no question 
of its being drunk, 


2 Aboda Zara 2.9. The fact that the writer uses the term of the 
Mishna shows that he has in mind that law, and that no additional strin- 
gency is intended. 


3 Aboda Zara 5.1. 


4 The charge of coin-clipping was one of the worst and most com- 
mon charges made against the Mediaeval Jew. Little wonder then 
that he should seek to prevent the practice. Cf. unsigned responsum 
in RMR 246. 


s This Takkanah occurs somewhat later in M and Z and is there 
also repeated in R, see paragraph 21. 


6 The provision that one is given three days to answer a com- 
plaint in Court is based on Baba Kamma 113a. It is stated there that 
one is not to be excommunicated as insubordinate unless he has thrice 
refused to obey a Court summons., As the Court in Talmudic times 


sat only on Monday and Thursdays, this meant that one was given. 


a Monday, Thursday and the following Monday in which to respond 


©. 6 Ogee, wee 





CHAPTER VII 237 


3. Ifaman threaten his neighbor in the presence of witnesses, 
saying “‘I will cause you loss of property,” and if there- 
after that Jew suffer loss, they shall compel the one who 
threatened to make restitution of the amount that the 
loser claims under oath; and if there are witnesses to testify 
regarding the amount that he lost,t the defamer shall make 
payment (without the oath). The defamer shall be con- 
sidered unfit to testify,? or to take an oath; he shall be 
declared excommunicated in all the communities until he 
pays his fellow and also does penance} in Mayence, Worms 
and Speyer (M, and he shall receive judgment from the 
three communities of Mayence, Worms and Speyer; R. 
Speyer, Worms, Mayence). “One who is excommunicated 
in his own city, is to be considered excommunicated in all 
other cities.’’4 


4. If books have been left with a man as a bailment, the 


to a summons. Since in Mediaeval Jewry the Court sat every day, 
three days would take the place of the Talmudic three Court days. 
The three day period is referred to also in RFL, 29. 

* As can be seen from the variants both R. and M, agree in 
reading here, ‘‘and if there are witnesses that he suffered loss.” That 
is however an inadmissible reading since there could be no case unless 
there was some evidence that the threatened man had actually suffered 
loss. What is stated here is that if there are witnesses who can testify 
regarding the amount of the loss, the plaintiff need take no oath re- 
garding the matter. 


2 This law is usually cited from the Book of Hefetz in the name of 
R. Paltoi Gaon (See Halper, Sefer Hefetz, p. 110). R. Joseph Colon 
insists that one cannot be declared unfit to testify unless one has ac- 
tually given information regarding Jews to Gentile powers, but not 
for merely threatening todoso. (See Res. 126). That view is how- 
ever in direct contradiction to the statement of R. Paltoi is generally 
quoted (Or Zarua, Baba Kamma 284 and Sanhedrin 23, Comp. also 
RMP 247, where the respondent does not quote the passage but de- 
cides that a threat to bring a Jewish litigation before Gentile courts 
brings punishment as well as the act itself). See Mueller, Mafieah p. 
91, 61, and note. To his references should be added Semag, Positive 
Commandments 70, RMP 307, and the others just mentioned. 


3 See page 184, Note 1. 


4 Moed Katan 16a. The later compilations have changed the 
text so that it might include also villages, but Z is closest to that of 
the Talmud. 


238 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Community shall not have the authority to seize them 
for any tax owed by their owner. 


5. If' a member of the Community states under oath that 
he has only such and such an amount of money and then 
it is found that he possessed more, and that he took a 
false oath, he shall be unfit to act as a witness or to take 
an oath; in cases of litigation where an oath is required, 
his opponent shall take the oath and receive payment. 


6. a. No person shall free himself from 
taxes because he ‘‘rides in the Court 
of the King.” 


b. Nooneshallstrike 
his neighbor. 


« There is nodoubtthat one who commits perjury to save him- 
self money is unfit for testimony according to Rabbinic law (Sanhedrin 
27a). On the other hand there is the oft-quoted opinion that the one 
who takes a false oath in regard to taxes does not thereby become 
unfit.- The Rabbinic principle seems to be that one whose sin consists 
in not having fulfilled an oath cannot be considered a perjurer. Perjury 
consists in taking an oath which is false at the time of the swearing. 
If one therefore promised under oath to pay his proper share of taxes, 
and failed to do so, he would not thereby become disqualified either 
to take other oaths or to act as witness. (see Shebuot 46b and Tosafol 
ad loc., Ashert ad loc. RMR 103, RMB 508, Mordecai Sanhedrin 3. 
694). Asa result of this law it became a prevalent notion that one 
could not be convicted of perjury because of false oaths in regard to 
taxes, even when the custom changed and each one has to state under 
oath the value of his possessions. If he gave a false amount, however, 
under oath he certainly was unfit according to law to testify in a Jew- 
ish Court. Hence there was need of the Takkanah before us to counter- 
act false notions. The feeling that an oath in regard to taxes was 
somehow less important than another could not, however, be so easily 
eradicated. The later synods, perhaps seeing the troubles that would 
result from declaring a person unfit for testimony who was generally 
accepted, omitted the words “‘for testimony”’. For while disqualifying 
a person to take an oath put him to a financial disadvantage only in 
case of litigation, disqualifying him as a witness might result in endless 
ritual complications, should someone ignorantly accept him as a 
witness to a marriage or a writ of divorce. 


CHAPTER VII 


th R 
flr the-King or Ifa person de- 
the Bishop say toa nouncehisneighbor 


Jew, “Give me such 
andsuchanamount 
or lend me money,” 
or if he should seize 
property, the whole 
community shall 
share the loss, pro- 
vided it was not 
indirectly caused by 
the person him- 


to the King or the 
Bishop or the ruler 
and cause damage 
to any Jew, the 
Jew being compelled 
either to make a 
gift or a loan to 
the powers then 
the community shall 
share and aid in the 


239 


self.? loss. But if the 
loss was caused in- 
directly through the 
victim’s fault the 
Community shall be 
free and shall not 
share the loss with 
him. 


In R the provision is limited to extortions caused by  in- 
formation given by another member of the Community. In M 
the provision is omitted. While the members of the Community were 
quite willing to share in such gain as accrued to any individual through 
his friendship to the King or Bishop, they were not so desirous of par- 
taking of the suffering that befell one. Yet it would seem that this 
provision would be a corollary of the following. 


3 This provision while given here as a Takkanah is upheld as 
good Rabbinic law by several authorities (RMC 222, RMP 708). R. 
Simhah b. Samuel of Speyer relates that his uncle, R. Kalonymos, 
being on very intimate terms with the bishop or ruler of his community 
often was granted a release from his share of the taxes. He would 
always share that benefit with the community, paying his proper 
share in spite of the special privilege granted him. R.Simhah adds 
that while for a time he considered this to be a result of his uncle’s 
extraordinary piety, he later came to the conclusion that it was good 
Jewish law. For all the members of a community are regarded in 
law as partners so far as the taxes are concerned. The Talmudic law 
provides thay any gain accruing to any member of a partnership must 


240 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


8. The young men! may not take from the 
bridegroom more than six of the small 
coins of the Kingdom; and the young 
men who are with the bridegroom shall 
not be permitted to take anything 
from the people 


R M 


and all shall be neither a chicken or 
at peace with one anything else.’ 
another. 


9. Ifs an individual has a complaint against the community 
because of taxes or for some other reason he shall pay the 
Community what they ask him, but the Community must 
respond to him in Court although they have no personal 
interest in the matter.4 The individual is to be considered 


be shared by all. (RMP 932, Or Zarua Baba Kamma 460, Cf. also 
RMR p. 206, and Isserlein, Pesakim u-ketabim, 144). 

« Just what the function of tne young men here mentioned was, 
is not made clear. Most likely they are the people referred to by 
R. Samson b. Abraham of Sens as going to meet the bridegroom 
(Tosofut Succah 45a, Asheri ad loc., Mordecai Succah 2,743). R.Samson 
tells us that it was customary for the young men to meet in combat; 
they would charge eacn other on horseback, and while apparently it 
was quite unusual for the riders to receive.any hurt, the horses would 
suffer and the riders’ clothes would often be torn. R. Samson frees 
the one causing the damage from any responsibility since both entered 
the game knowing the risk involved. The custom mentioned by R. 
Asher b. Yehiel (Res. 101, 5) is not identical with this. There the 
young men escort the bridegroom, and it was only by accident that the 
mule on which one was riding was hurt. 

2 Stealing in play is not unknown in Jewish literature. In 
Terumat Ha-Deshen (110) it is stated in the name of Riba (R. Isaac b. 
Asher) that one cannot be called to account for stealing food in jest 
on Purim. The same responsum is quoted by R. Moses Mintz (Res. 
18). See above, p. 126. / 

3 This section is practically identical with TRG, 7. 

4 There is a distinct difference here between R and M on the 
one hand and Z on the other in regard to this provision. In R and M 
it is provided that the Community need not answer a complainant 
in any other courts than its own. In order to insure impartiality, 


“ 


= = 


CHAPTER VII 241 


as if he were in possession of his own.’ They must 
follow the decision of the Court according to the law. 
If anyone transgresses he all be fined or flogged. 

10. An anathema should be declared against the informers 
on every Sabbath.? 

11. Whoever has a Hagzzgan or one to “‘roll the Torah”’, 
or any public officer appointed through Gentile influence, 
is excommunicated and also the hazzan and the one ‘“‘who 
rolls the Torah,’ as well as he who endeavors to bring it 
about that a Gentile should judge a Jew is to be in excom- 
munication, for one should try one’s litigation through 
Jewish judges. 


however, the judges must first waive any benefit that may accrue 
to them from the decision. Jn Z it is required tnat the representatives 
of the Community appear before ‘‘those who are not connected with 
the case’’ that is the judges of some other community. 

« The citizen must pay all that the community demands from 
him before he can compel them to respond in Court. The Takkanah 
provides that he should not by this act lose the advantage of being the 
defendant rather than the plaintiff. This is not, however, the accepted 
view. R. Meir b. Baruch says, (RMP 106), ‘‘ Wherever an individual 
has an unproven claim or a doubtful case against the community, 
we say the secular law of the land is dominant. The taxes of each 
person are to be considered as lying in the treasure-house of the King. 
It is but reasonable that this should be so. Otherwise every member 
of the community might claim, ‘I am legally free for I have paid my 
taxes’. He could then say, ‘I will state under oath that I paid, or you 
state under oath that I did not’. (Such is the Rabbinic law in cases 
where no proof is available). Now rather than that every person 
should take an oath over the small amount that would fall to nis share, 
they would each waive their right and the individual would free him- 
self from taxes.’”’ It was therefore decided that the Community has 
the benefit of the doubt if the individual brings no proof of his having 
paid or being free from payment. 

2 R inserts here a provision which corresponds in part to what 
is found at the end of Z, namely, that he who remains under the ban 
of excommunication for a month forfeits the protection that Jewish 
law offers him against defamation; and his property may therefore be 
denounced to the ruling powers. This doctrine was vigorously opposed 
by R. Joseph Colon in later times (Res. 127) although he defended the 
right of the Community to use physical force, even that of the govern- 
ment in the collection of taxes. 

3 Compare Takkanah of R: Tam, chapter IV, Text A. And 
see Sefer Hasidim (ed. Bologna) section 764. 


242 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Zz R M 
12. It is not permitted to play with a 
Gentile? or with a Jew for money 


or for food and but one may play 

drink? nor may _ for food or drink 

one give money in- on half-holidays 

stead of food. (festival week) or at 
a wedding, but one 
is then not permitted 
to exchange the food 
for money. 


13. The Parnes may not in secret excommunicate any 
person or release an excommunication without the consent 


« Since according to some authorities the property-rights of Gen- 
tiles are not as clearly defined in Jewish law as those of Jews, it might 
have been supposed that one would be permitted to play games of 
chance with Gentiles. It was therefore necessary to declare that 
the property of Gentiles was just as sacred as that of Jews. (See Res. 
Binyamin Zeeb, 281). 

2 Gambling for food stuff or drink was held not to be so serious 
an offense as gambling for money. Since people were not usually 
niggardly about their food, there could not be so strong a prohibition 
against using the money of others for food as there was in ordinary 
gambling. Compare Mishna Sabbath 22.2. See also the will of R. 
Solomon of St. Goar, published in Kobez Debarim Nehmadim (Husiatyn). 


3 Gambling was the subject of numberless Takkanot in the Middle 
Ages. Cf. Res. R. Isaac b. Sheshet 249, R. Elijah Mizrachi 13, R. 
Israel Bruna 136, and many others. 


4 The abuse of the herem was so tempting that something had 
to be done to restrain the Rabbis and leaders of the communities. The 
words ‘‘in secret’’ are not to be taken too literally. The great power 
of the herem lay in its public character and the social ostracism it in- 
volved. What is meant is that the herem is not to be pronounced at a 
secret meeting. Such Takkanot were not rare. R. Israel Bruna 
tells us that the ordinance existed in his time (Res. 188), and we have 
a responsum of R. Solomon Ibn Adret, where he denies the power of 
a community to limit the power of the Rabbi in that manner. (Comment 
of R. Moses Isserles, Yoreh Deah, 334.18). One of the charges against 
R. Benjamin b. Mattathias was that in violation of a Takkanah similar 
to this, he excommunicated people without the consent of the community 
(Binyamin Zeeb 249). 


CHAPTER VII 243 


of the community, nor may the Rabbi do so. Only the 
Public Assembly shall declare or release excommunication, 


fs R M 

14. a. No' person shall close a synagogue 

unless he has “‘seated the community” 

twice or thrice and the Community 

shall hear his complaints and do him 

justice. 

b. No one may in- Nor may one inter- 

terrupt prayers at rupt the prayers 

the afternoon or otherwise than at 

morning services, or the Seder Kedushah. 

on the Sabbaths or 

when the Hallel? is 

recited. 

-15. No Jew shall through recourse to Gentiles free himself 

of his communal obligations. 
All this have we 
decreed under the 
herem. 


16. Nor shall anyone reveal any secrets to Gentiles. 


17. No man or woman shall prepare 
any feast except in fulfilment of a re- 
ligious obligation.4 But if 


t See Takkanot of R. Gershom (page 119, paragraph 2). In a 
manuscript of Sefer Minhagim of the Library of the Jewish Theological 
Seminary, to which reference has already been made, (above p. 128), 
fol. 63a, the following statement is found: 

pt oon> wyw ay pws oysa dex aod doa mobs) ain on ADI 
“An orphan, whether male or female, and a widow, may close the 
synagogue even in making their first complaint, until justice is done 
them.”’ 

2 By the Seder Kedushah is meant the prayer }yx> xa) where 
the Kedushah is recited with its Aramaic translation. 

3 The Hallel is recited on Hanukkah, the New Moons and the 
three festivals, Passover, Shebuot and Succot. 

4 See Pesahim 50a and comp. Alfasi and Mordecai ad loc. Lim- 
itations on expenditures for banquets’ were common in the Takkanot 
of the Middle Ages, see Part I, p. 88, and also Guedemann, I.160, 
Aries ).cs: ly. 1920; np. 79. 


244 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Zz | R M 

one hashad his blood 
let? or if 

one has guests he may ask his friends to 

come and dine with him. Similarly 

women may dine with one that has 

given birth. On a festival, too, itis 

permitted. 


No man shall make 
complaint at the 
synagogue on a day 
when the Hallel is 
recited, but the 
prayers may be in- 
terrupted for the 
public needs. 


18. No private individual may recite the prayers on Rosh 
Ha-Shanah or Yom Kippur without having obtained the 
consent of the Community.” But the Hazzan may recite 
the prayers of the first day of Rosh Ha-Shanah, and Evening 


t That the day on which one was bled was celebrated as a festive 
day, or at least was the occasion of a dinner to one’s friends, can be 
seen also in RMP 605 and elsewhere. 

2 The office of the Hazzan was generally held during good be- 
havior. Moreover in many communities it was hereditary. While 
it was not always a salaried position, it seems to have become very 
often an office with many applications and candidates (RMR 109, 
110, 112). Very often a Community or an influential part of it would 
like to remove a hazzan either because his voice had ceased to be pleasing 
or because of personal animosity. The rule laid down here was that 
if a hazzan had not been formally removed—and that could only be 
done for cause—he might insist on his right to read the prayers during 
the times when a hazzan performed such duties, that is on the first day 
of Rosh Ha-Shanah, and on Yom Kippur evening, and Yom Kippur 
morning prayers till the Musaf service. That a hazzan was expected 
to recite the prayers only on the first day of Rosh ha-Shanah can be 
seen from the instances of R. Jacob Molin (Maharil, Laws of Rosh 
Ha-Shanah, note) and R. Israel Isserlein (Leket Yosher p. 129). Maharil 
recited all the prayers of Yom Kippur, but that was probably voluntary 
on his part, and in accordance with the desires of the Congregation 
(Maharil, Yom Kippur). 








CHAPTER VII 245 


Prayers of Yom Kippur as well as the Morning Prayers 
till the Musaf Service. But on the second day of Rosh 
Ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur after the Musaf Service, it 
is left to the community to assign the prayer. If the Hazzan 
is weak so that he cannot pray the people shall appoint 
someone to take his place. 


19. Let? it not occur to any man to command the judges 
of Israel not to sit in judgement or to open a trial. All 
of these things did we enjoin under the herem. 


20. We? also have ordered, all to observe our Takkanah 


t Compare Takkanot of R. Tam, above p. 153. 

2 As is well known Biblical law provides that if a man dies with- 
out issue, his brother is to marry his wife. Jt is assumed in tne Ta!mud 
on the basis of the story in the book of Ruth, that with the marriage 
of iis sister-in-law (Yibbuwm) the brother-in-law also acquired special 
rights in the property of his deceased brother. If the brother-in-law 
refused to accept the widow as his wife, she had recourse to the cere- 
mony of Halizah, which freed her to marry anyone she preferred. In 
the case of Halizah, the widow was of course given her dower-rights 
from the estate of her former husband. 

Rapacious brothers-in-law, however, often sought to obtain from the 
poor widow part of her Ketubah.in return for the freedom to marry 
again which was given her through the Hulizah. As Jewish police 
power disappeared, there was no way in which the brother-in-law could 
be compelled to allow the Halizah to be performed. The only induce- 
ment that could be offered in most cases was money. The Takkanah 
before us seeks to remedy this defect by defining to some extent the 
respective rights of the brother-in-law and of the widow. The matter 
underwent further development in the Takkanah printed below as 
Text B. 

This part of the ordinance seems to be the oldest. We find it not 
only in the texts of these Takkanot but it was quoted inaresponsum by 
R. Meir b. Baruch and through him in the responsa of R. Moses Mintz 
and by R. Solomon Luria (Yam Shel Shelomo, Yebamot 4.18), as stated 
in the introductory note to these Takkanot. In these extracts and 
also in R. it is declared to be the work of a synod assembled in the year 
56 by R. David of Muenzberg. There can be hardly a doubt that he 
called the synod to consider the conditions that were prevailing after 
the Third Crusade in 1195. Many Jews lost their lives at the time and 
most of the survivors were impoverished. At such a time it was vitally 
necessary to take some action in regard to the matter of Halizah and 
the power of the brother-in-law over the widow. That the ’56 means 
4956 (1196) and not 5056 (1296) is evident from the fact that R. David 


246 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE] MIDDLE AGES 


that the brother-in-law (in case of a Halizah) should not 
keep his sister-in-law in suspense. From her own estate 
nothing must be deducted. The estates which came to 
her through her husband (both lands and books' which 
are family heirlooms) shall be divided between them, so 
that the heritage may not go to some other family.’ 
If it is the husband’s acquired, rather than his inherited, 
estate,’ the judges shall divide it according to what appears 
just before their Creator. The movable property should 
be divided in the ‘‘gate of the city’? between the brother- 
in-law and the widow, according to the understanding 
of the scholars and the heirs shall not deviate from their 
decision either to the right or to the left. One must not 
take from the widow any of the property which she brought 
into the marriage. The brother-in-law must free the widow 
without any delay and leavening of the Mitzvah. If the 
widow was only Arusah4 the brother-in-law must have 
the Halizah performed after three months’ (excluding 
the day of the husband’s death), without delay, and he 
has no right to demand anything. The widow must take 
an oath as to the value of the property which she has in 
hand and the judges shall arrange between the brother- 


of Muenzberg is mentioned in connection with it. He died in the early 
part of the thirteenth century. It would be quite natural for people 
writing in 4983 (when R. was admittedly written) to refer to a date 
less than thirty years previous without mentioning the century. 

* In the Middle Ages books were considered in the same class 
as real estate in many respects. They were treated as a distinct 
class of property in regard to taxation (Res. R. Meir b. Baruch, ed. 
Prague, 767, Res. R. Hayyim or Zorua 2, and Terumat Ha-Deshen, 
342), and are often mentioned on an equality with landed estates. 

2 Compare Numbers 36.9. 

3 Compare Leviticus 27.22. 

4 One who had received Kiddushin (i. e. a ring or some other gift, 
by which she became sanctified to her bridegroom) but with whom the 
Nissuin has not been performed. 

5 The law requiring that the Halizah take place no less than 
three months after the death of the husband is Talmudic ( Yebamot 
4.5). It is part of the general rule that a widow or divorcee may not 
marry within three months after the death of the husband or the di- 
vorce. 


CHAPTER VII 247 


in-law and the widow. As for the widow who was fully 
married the Halizah must be performed without delay, 
and the widow must go to the domicile of the brother-in-law 
to be released if he is in a different city. If the brother- 
in-law refuses to release her he is to be flogged (Other 
texts, excommunicated) until he promises to do what the 
Sages ordain. 


21. We have furthermore decreed that at each wedding they 
shall appoint a Jewish guardian to prevent pouring of 
water into the caldron from which they are to eat on the 
Sabbath. 


22. No one shall be permitted to cast a writ of divorce 
to his wife without the consent of three communities. If 
he does divorce her without such consent, the husband 
and the witnesses shall be excommunicated.! 


23. No one shall call his neighbor “bastard’’ or revile 
him with any other blemish of birth. All this have we 
decreed under the herem.? 

24. We have also agreed and ordered that each man shall 
bring his tithes or other gifts to charity in accordance 
with the decree of the community. 


255 In a locality where In a locality where 


the amount given 
for the instruction 
of the young is in- 
sufficient, they may 
take part of what 
people have left for 
the “memory of 
their souls’’,4 and 
give it to teachers, 
unless the person on 
his sick bed stated 


the amount given 
for the instruction 
of the young is in- 
sufficient (because 
the fund left for the 
purpose is too small, 
because they have 
little) they may take 
from other funds left 
by deceased persons 


and pay the teachers 


t See part *I, 23ff and notes. 

2 See above p. 179, Text A. note 2. 

3 See p. 185, note 18. 

4 It seems to have been customary for people to leave sums on 
their deathbed for charitable purposes, and as a reward their would 
be prayed for on the final days of the festivals and on Yom Kippur. 


248 


the purposeforwhich 
his money was to be 
used. ~The remain- 
der they may use for 
such purpose as the 
Community desires. 


JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


unless the person on 
hissickbed stated the 
purpose for which 
the money was to be 
used; the remainder 
may be used for such 
purposes as the Com- 
munity desires, 


26. We have ordered that no one shall act as Shohet or 
Bodek unless he presents himself to the expert or the Rabbi 
for trial; and the villagers may go (for reviewing their 
studies?) to the expert. 


aie 


One whois unable to 
devote himself to the 
study of Talmud, 
should study half a 
page if possible or 
Midrash or Scripture 
or part of the weekly 
portion every day, 
(Hewhocandomuch 
and he who can only 
do little are alike). ! 
They should study 
daily unless they 
are prevented by an 
emergency. ? 


t See Mishna Meénchot, end. 


Every man shall set 
aside a definite time 
for study; if he is 
unable to study Tal- 
mud, he shall read 
Scripture, the weekly 
portion, or the Mid- 
rash according to his 
ability, he who does 
much and he who 
does little are alike, 
provided that he is 
not prevented by an 
emergency. Noone 
may send meat 
home except 
througha Jew. The 
forbidden fat on the 
loins of the animal 


2 


2 It is evident that the quotation from the Mishna is an insertion 


for as it stands it separates the final clause from its connection, leaving 
What the paragraph originally stated was 
doubtless, that the person should set the time to study daily provided 
no preventing emergency would arise. 


it without meaning. 


28. 


CHAPTER VII 


Every. man shall 
castasideenmity and 
rivalry. And no one 


_ shall go to the Syn- 


Whoever transgres- 
sesany ofthese Tak- 
kanot shall be under 
the excommunica- 
tion of all the Com- 
munities, and if he 
remains in his ob- 
duracy for a month 
his property may be 
denounced to. the 
King. 3 
keeps our Takkanot 
shall be blessed by 
the King of Glory. 


1 See Hullin 93a. 


2 See Guedemann, 


agogue otherwise 
than with a cloak 
or overcoat but one 
should not wear a 
suckents.? 


Whoever | 


David‘ b. Kalony- 
_mos 


eT 


3 See above note 206. 
4 What is known of the individuals mentioned as signers of the 
Takkanah has been gathered by Rosenthal in his notes to the edition 
of R in the Monatsschrift, vol. 45. Special reference may be made to 


249 


shall be removed in 
accordancewiththe 
Talmudic law.' 


It is not permitted 
to speak in the 
Synagogue, but they 
shall sit with re- 
verence and awe and 
serve their Father 
who is in Heaven. 
All this have we 
commanded with a 
severe herem. 


Ail these Takkanot 
were made by the 
herem. Wehavere- 
newed now in the 
year 4980, what our 
ancestors ordained 
previously may years 
ago, hereat Mayence 
by a severe herem; 
except for the ordin- 
ances of the Great 
Light, R. Gershom, 
the Light of the Dis- 
persion, b. R. Judah, 
which are very 
many, and are well- 
known, and did not 
need renewal. 


250 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Joseph b. Othniel. 
Jacob ‘b. Asher. 
Eliezer ha-qatan b. 
R. Judah 
Abi Ha-Ezri (Eli- 
ezer b. Joel Ha- 
Levi) 
Simhah b. Samuel 
Eliezer b. Samuel 
Nathan b. Samson 
Baruch b. Samuel 
(Not in R) 
Joel b. Nathan Ha- 
Kohen 
Nathan b. Isaac. 
Hezekiah b. Reuben 
Mattathias b. Reu- 
ben (Not in Z) 
Isaac b. Solomon 
(Ha-Kohen) 
Meir b. Samuel 
Meir b. Joel Ha- 
Kohen 
Simeon (M. R. 
Samson) b. Eph- 
raim 
Eleazar b. Samson 
(M. R. Simeon) 
Joseph b. Judah 
(Not in M or R) 
Jacob b. Isaac Ha- 
Levi 
- Isaac b. Meshullam 
(M. b. Samuel) 
Ha-Levi(notinZ) 
Judah b. Simeon 
(Not in Z) 
his suggestion that the R. David b. Kalonymos who is here mentioned 


as one of the signers, is not to be identified with the R. David of 
Muenzberg. 


CHAPTER VII 251 


(Found only in M) Afterward’ we renewed these Takkanot 
under the herem even though it was an ancient ordinance: 
That the Rabbi shall not excommunicate any one without 
the permission of the Community, nor shail the Community 
excommunicate anyone without the sanction of the Rabbi. 
If the Rabbi or the Community transgress this ordinance 
their excommunication need not be heeded. Even if 
the other Rabbis should agree with the local Rabbi and 
add their excommunication, it is not to be heeded. This 
ordinance has come to us from our ancestors. Isaac b. 
Abraham, AB.? b. IH., David b. Shealtiel? Meshullam b. 
David,4 Judah b. Moses Ha-Kohen,5 Joseph b. Moses 
Hazzan and all the community to Speyer, Worms and 
Mayence agreed and signed. 


THX THB 
TAKKANOT OF THE RHINE COMMUNITIES 1381 


In establishing the text of the following Takkanot, there 
were available five sources, 1. The Yam _ shel Shelomo 
(Hebrew 3D) by R. Solomon Luria, where the Takkanot 
are quoted in an abbreviated form (See Yebamot, 4.18). 
2. The responsa of R. Moses Mintz (Heb. y), where they 
are quoted at somewhat greater length (see res. 10). 
The following Bodleian Manuscripts: 3. Hunt 221, Neubauer 
820 (Heb. 3). 4. Mich. 392, Neubauer 693 (Heb. ) 
and; 5. Seld. A.5 Neubauer 864 (Heb. 1). They differ 


t For the date of this synod see preface to these Takkanot, 
and also Part I pp. 63-65. 

2 Bruell Jahrbuecher 7, 89, Note, and A.Freiman, Ascher b. Yehiel, 
1918, p. 7, note 8. 

3 See Or Ha-Hayyim p. 347, Gross in Monatschrift, 1871, p. 263, 
and Kohn, Mordecai b. Hillel, p. 107. 

4 See J. E. VIII, 502, Epstein in Monatschrift, 41.468, and Kohn, 
Mordecai b. Hillel, p. 141. He was the son of the famous R. David b. 
Kalonymos of Muenzberg. Together with R. David b. Shealtiel he 
corresponded with R. Isaac Or Zarua (See HOS 103, 221, 747). 

5 See Kohn, Mordecai b. Hillel, p. 130. He wasa relative and a 
teacher of R. Meir b. Baruch. Took part in case together with R. 
Meshullam b. David and R. David b. Shealtiel (HOS 221). 


252 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


very slightly from one another. _The only difference of 
real importance, as can be seen from the list of variants, 
is in the matter of the.date. Hunt. 221 gives the date as 
5146 rather than 5141 which is that of the other sources. 
Moreover while all the other sources mention that the synod 
took place on Monday, the fifteenth of Ab, this text omits 
the mention of the day of the week. This omission was 
necessitated by reason of the fact that in 5146, the fifttenth 
of Ab did not fall on a Monday. It did fall on that day 
in 5141. In view of the fact that the date is given so 
exactly in most of the sources, I believe that we may safely 
assume 5141 to be the correct date. 
TEXT | 

IMD °D WNT Ws yy .v7DS Nop mw AwINMWw ow mrp mpn 
MODDM PSI 7D WIS AN AD ADIN Ar Manon pyjws mya mpidno 
nm pmb mow an nnonw ody oy airman 3pm ar by w moby 
pyainn pop nono mmy mavy ow) mow is myn rat Sy on 
ney myo sim aedn myo Sy onmy: n> xb awN 20D OND 
pay ane op? Syt Sinn abot obs Co atta ona ady2 axdbm 
TION TNT warn orxw poo yd Poy onw Pano) ono. nN 
TY INN TXT TONY 4Ty IMS PDD AwY MDa 390") BINA AXdM 
wD -PTy OT AwWY MYOT NDT wD) GS." Man) WH] Xxnw 
odnp>p mod oy Gn np mye mx nawot on oman moNw 
DP IY SONI Aw m"y MMP MAN WSN Wyow AWD 7 ON. 
sya myy> a5n aM mpn max 6 ow $2) ard mpn wy ow 
ns $55 aun wiped) asad npibmo man cnbad apyn cw am 
"pn minod xd. wwno>07 nN yay epor onbad nxn nen Toww 
pw wer nbad moom jon 727 b> by oy pond wid xbs onotpa 
xd) any and qos now 7InNM AT an owd Fox Tow INN OTN 
am> oat pm w'yd onm> maw ody oy wy ws am ws 
oy Sapa yaw 795) onoNnd ones ym DYyow) oF aT pm pion xbw 
pond wma 2» whm ans mPa wD_M Ooms) O94 AND 
{20207 WS ANN MPN pinmw TD woy oinndy 

dio *D dt 

NM Pod .y 2 

FIN) -y 3 

JO WTY 02 4 

0319 VID 2 5 

mywy> a1 ayn mony) mpbnon wy .mxya mn nD w 2 6 

JD ANN....IINT LY 27 


CHAPTER VII 253 


DYD ImN2 iwidyip yavod AB Py IA Wn OID mand Iya AM 
"main mbinanw wwospm yas ims jay) mb> Any) yave ims 4dn 
xd) mop xd pode yavon myo "1 modsm pubs yavon nr msn 
wonnw ww n> answ o’N8 ony 

20577) MapN wT AIM AX?ON AXTM) Twr aednm rat Syn 
1an> ~ws owny bod) omnat by om 00 uy ody “oy onotpA 
9979 OYwIN "yd ANY TOIT Yd NWI DIT pry snow mds on oT 
I DIw Pa ow Iw IDTw ODD] NNT NIM Syan nw aN’ ON 
minw ooo $2 pdr 3at ps7 xd nim yo InNw oN Iam pa 
py7p> moan pon osn yy xb -px moIM Nowy mwa my non 
IW ANN. pyn> moa pon xn yx many oD oN Sax Anand 
sya ‘andm mowd wy 7S os orm non owiy> ap. ow IN an 
pippp xd omra any yi Nd) ow wd srw “DDI ox Ad un NW 
DD) on 4q~n7 Nba wd) win ‘wRD qwy aNaDD NON TIT) Nd) 
mom ards iar xd Papo INNS IN MOND IN TPaND mew nb 
pan ans qbn mepam wera yesyd um sin ww mp 57) WNT 
oan sine mo yinpd by mons qd.7 sim ox ow exiny orpoa 
naa ww bw ivxw prooa pry inn yond onbad om ano on) ar by 
yond axsanw ay mbnpm $5 dw onna 39> aydna yo vownd 
52 DDMPM AD OIA NIM DIA wma wnya wenya 7M 
wx Sop v7p> sx"pp nw aN y'p 7'3 ora woD0n 


7’ ‘pm "wo ya moby poi nom Ssemp "2 mw 
brDIST apy 

pana Sw ssp ja dsedn) a'n72 12 DTTAN 

ONT Mwy) *NDDoAA Dy n'a) avn 7a yn dyn 

p722017 72 ON: wd opds a’a pny 


(w') w'n am Tynaocnen Oo  oy"ay ynon pny’ o’a Ser 
pina joan bsyiew "pra ND 
3 inv 


There seems to be no need of translating the introduction 
which describes the confusion into which matters had 


n'ydip 3 

omni .o °9r .p 

DIM Now Mya My non .p 
DT wp 

A) ae, 

yd mby) nim 4.0 

boy 

VDP .p 


en ogo ar &® &H 


254 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


fallen because of the unfortunate lack of agreement among 
the Rabbi as to the rightful amount due the Yabam. The 
body of the Takkanah is as follows: 


“Therefore have we, sitting in assembly, in the council 
of Rabbis and Presidents of Communities, unanimously 
agreed on the following ordinances. We also beg our mas- 
ters to agree to these ordinances and to sign them so that 
they may be the more firmly established. This is what we 
have ordained. : 


1. The’ payment for the Ketubah in times past has been 
made in the coins of Cologne. At the time the custom 
was established these coins were current, but now they 
have completely disappeared. We have therefore agreed 
that the Ketubah of a virgin shall be six hundred (600) 
gold florins, and that of a widow, three hundred gold 
florins, neither less nor more, unless the husband has 
agreed to increase the dower, or the wife waived part of 
her rights. 


2. Regarding the matter of the Halizah,? we have ex- 


* The disappearance of the Cologne coins as a standard currency 
brought confusion into the whole matter of payments demanded by 
Jewish law. A generation after the passing of this ordinance, R. 
Jacob Molin, the son of one of the signers, tells us that 200 florins were 
paid in Cologne, while it was usual to pay 600 in Mayence. In other 
words, Cologne had not adopted this Takkanah. It seems strange 
that Maharil, (as R. Jacob is usually known), makes no mention of this sy- 
nod in defending the custom of his community. He rather quotes 
Talmudic precedents for permitting the people of a locality to set 
their Ketubah at an amount beyond that which is usual. This is es- 
pecially justifiable, he claims, where the people of a district are of 
better stock, and he claims that the people of the upper Rhine are of 
better fainilies than those of the lower Rhine country. (Minhage 
Maharil, Laws of Marriage). R. Jacob Weil, a disciple of Maharil, 
informs us that in his time, the practically universal custom in the Rhine 
cities was the payment of 600 florins (Res. 14). We see then that the 
ordinance was gradually accepted. 

2 See the Takkanah in regard to the Halizah which is included in 
the text of the Takkanot of the Rhine Communities of the thirteenth 
century (above, p. 229). That ordinance permitted the individual 
rabbi or judge to decide in each case what share of the property was 


CHAPTER VII 255 


amined the Takkanot of our masters, the great men of 
former times and we agree to all they say and to the 
punishments which they have set for disobedience: 
Niddu, Herem, curse, and excommunication. The Yabam 
(the brother of the deceased husband) shall not keep the 
widow in suspense for more than the three months which 
is required by the law; and whether there are estates which 
the husband and wife severally brought into the marriage 
and which increased or decreased in value, or one of the 
couple brought nothing, all the family property shall be 
divided equally between the heirs of the deceased and the 
widow, even if the portion of the widow is less than the 
amount due to her as her Ketubah. If, however, the estates 
are large and the half that is to be given to the widow is 
equal to or is more than the amount of the Ketubah, the 
heirs of the deceased and the Yabam have the option either 
to pay the widow the amount of her Ketubah in cash, or to 
give her one half of the estates which were left. There shall 
be no further disagreement or difference between them but 
all must be done in the manner described in accordance with 
this decree. The widow shall be freed without further delay. 
In regard to the property which she inherited from her 
father or mother or another relative, they may not take 
it from her, but they must give it to her completely. Si- 
milarly, whatever he inherited must be given to his heirs 
completely. The widow must go to the place of her brother- 
in-law and. if he comes to her city she must pay his expenses. 
If the brother-in-law objects and refuses to have the Halizah 
performed in his desire for money which is not his, or 
if he flees in order to avoid the Halizah, he shall be ‘‘ taken 
in the net of the excommunication”’ of the Communities 
until the Halizah is performed. Thus did we decide on 
Monday, the fifteenth of Ab, of the year 5141. 


to be given to the brother of the deceased and what to the widow. As 
the introduction to the Takkanah states, this uncertainty led to many 
abuses, since it naturally soon became known that one rabbi generally 
favored the brothers and another the widows. The Takkanah before 
us by definitely fixing the method of division is a distinct advance on 
the earlier one. 


256 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Moses b. Yekutiel Molin * 

Abraham b. Gamaliel ‘b. Pdahzur 

Nathan b. Hayyim”™ 

Isaac b. Eliakim 

Yehiel b. Isaac Ha-Kohen 

Solomon b. Jacob 

Samuel Bonfant 

This was enacted with my consent, Menlin of Rothenburg. 

I, too, was present at this council, Meir b. Samuel Ha- 
Kohen of Nordhausen.”’ 


* So far as these men are known they are described in part I, 
p. 74, and notes. 


CHAPTER VIII 


SYNOD OF FRANKFORT, 1603 


The text of the Takkanot which were passed at the synod 
that was held in Frankfort, in the year 1603, was for a 
long time considered lost. One of the translations that 
were prepared in defense of the Jews against the accusation 
of high treason has been printed by Stern in Koenigs- 
berger’s Monatsblaettern 1890-1. The Hebrew original was 
found and published by Dr. M. Horovitz of Frankfort in 
a separate pamphlet in 1897. 

The following is a free translation, in the nature of an 
abstract of the Takkanot, but it preserves the essential 
features of each section. 

The heads of the Communities have gathered here at 
Frankfort at the order of our masters, the Sages of Germany, 
to sit in council and look into the needs of the community 
and to make such ordinances and decrees as appear to be 
needed by the time and the place, so that the Holy People 
may not be a sheep without a shepherd; 


Section 1 


Regarding law and judgement.? It is common offense 
among the people of our generation to refuse to obey 
Jewish law and even to compel opposing litigants to present 
themselves before secular courts. The result is that the 
Holy Name is profaned and that the Government and the 
judges are provoked at us. We have therefore decided 
that anyone who sues his neighbor in secular courts shall 
be compelled to free him from all the charges made against 
him, even though the Courts decided in favor of the plaintiff. 
A person guilty of taking a case to Gentile courts shall 


t See part I, page 79. ; 
2 See Takkanan of R. Tam, above Chapter IV. 


258 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


be separated from the community of Israel, shall not be 
called to the Torah, and shall not be permitted to marry 
until he repents and trees his fellow from the power of the 
Gentile courts. If the defendant was compelled to under- 
take expenditures in order to bring the infraction of this 
ordinance before the Jewish courts, the offender shall 
be compelled to bear the expense. 

It is well-known that many persons have by the power 
of their wealth sought to break down the organization of 
Jewish life in Germany, and have all but destroyed it 
completely. It is hoped that at some future time they 
will be brought to justice. However, anyone who will 
henceforth act in violation of the above ordinance shall 
be considered an informer and he ostracized as described 
above. We have ordained and established a special prayer 
concerning this rule to be publicly recited in every Jewish 
community every Sabbath throughout Germany. 

If the transgressor of this ordinance be a scholar, he 
is guilty of profanation of the name, and shall therefore 
lose his right to be called Rabbi; anyone who gives him the 
title shall be punished. If he be a leader of head of a 
community or an acting Rabbi or Teacher, he shall be re- 
moved from office. 

Since we know that we have in our communities wicked 
men of much influence who cannot be dealt with by the 
local courts, we have established five central courts in 
the following cities;—Frankfort, Worms, Fulda, Friedburg, 
and Ginzburg. If any local court finds itself powerless 
to deal with any person it shall refer the matter to the 
district court. The judge of this court shall do all in his 
power to bring the offending person to terms. 


Section 2 


It has been agreed that each settlement shall make the 
assessment for the purposes of taxation in the following 
manner.’ Each community shall choose assessors of un- 


* Compare Italian Takkanot, below, chapter X, and Takkanot 
of Castile, below, chapter XIII. . 


CHAPTER VIII 259 


questioned honesty and piety, who will assess every man 
and women according to their possessions. The assessors 
shall take an oath to act without consideration of friendship 
or enmity, and to be fair to each person. After making 
the assessment they shall divide it in half, and each person 
shall pay a “Shekel” pro rata on the remainder. 

Such persons as live far away from Jewish communities 
shall be obliged to present themselves before the community 
with which they are generally associated and they shall 
there be assessed in the manner just described. 

The assessors shall keep the assessments of the individuals 
in confidence so far as possible. 

The Rabbis of Germany have agreed to collect each 
month beginning with the month of Tishri, 365 (1605) 
a tax of one percent of all the property. 

The following cities were appointed centers to which 
collected moneys were to be sent: Frankfort, Worms, 
Mayence, Bing, Hamm, Friedburg, Schneitach, Waller- 

stein, and Ginzburg. 

' The assembled delegates shall then choose representative 
men to present the Jewish affairs before the Court of the 
King. 

The collected moneys shail be put in a treasury a key 
to which shall be in the possession of each of the delegates. 
But no one shall remove anything without the knowledge 
and consent of his colleagues. 

If any persons refuse to give their allotted share toward 
the common fund, the head of the Court and the head of 
the Community shall be obliged to separate them from 
the whole community of Israel, from intermarrying with 
them, or permitting them to take part in any religious 
function. 

It was further agreed that from this day forth no com- 
munity shall be permitted to withhold their apportioned 
share of the tax whether in whole or in part because of 
any claim which that community claims to have against 
the General Organization, but the payment of the tax 
shall be made, and then the claim adjusted by the Sages 
of the time. 


260 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Section 3 


It is often been found that men are engaged in Shehitah 
who lack adequate authorization,’ or having received au- 
thorization fail to review their studies and forget the law, 
thus causing their fellow-Jews to eat forbidden food. 
Moreover many fail to examine the knife in the proper 
manner. We therefore urge the head of each province 
and settlement to send an investigator, so far as possible, 
to review the necessary laws with the shohetim. 


Section 4 


We have further decided that every head of a community 
has it as his duty to interfere with the buying of wine 
from Gentiles. If it is proven that any Jew has drunk 
wine in the house of Gentile, it shall be forbidden for any 
other Jew to marry his daughter, or to give him lodging, 
or to call him to the Torah or to allow him to perform any 
religious. function. 

We have further decided that every Jew living in a wine- 
growing province, shall make his own wine both for his 
own use and for sale. One shall not be permitted to keep 
wine of Gentiles in the same room as properly prepared wine. 

The head of the courts of the communities shall make 
as stringent laws regarding this matter as they may con- 
sider fit, and we will assist them in the enforcement of them. 
Any Rabbi who shall commit any infraction of this law, 
shall be deposed from his position, and anyone who shall 
thereafter call him Rabdz or Haber shall be punished. 


Section 5 


No one shall be appointed a Rabbi without the consent 
of three heads of academies; the authorization as haber? 
given any person by a Rabbi outside of Germany, shall 


* See Takkanot Shum, above, p. 231, section 26. 
2 Haber is a title used in the Talmud for scholars. In Mediaeval 


Germany it was a layman's title of honor, given for acquaintance with 
the Talmud and Halaka. 


CHAPTER VIII 261 


not be considered valid; no authorization as Rabbi shall 
be given any young man who has not been married for 
two years. 


Section 6 


It is well known that much trouble has arisen in Jewish 
communities and settlements because of the wicked Jews 
who engage in trade of counterfeit coins, the coins in 
some cases being completely valueless, in other cases counter- 
feited to look like a more valuable one than it actually 
is. As a result instead of it being said ‘‘The remnant 
of Israel does no evil’’, they say, ‘Where is the God of 
this nation?’ We have therefore agreed that from this 
day forth, anyone found engaged in such practices shall 
be punished with all the severity described above. This 


shall also apply to those who forge documents in collecting 
debts. 


Section 7 


We have agreed that anyone who buys any wares from 
one who is well-known as a thief or lends a thief money 
on any pledge, shall be punished in the manner described 
above. 


Section 8 


Anyone who borrows money or wares from Gentiles with 
the intention of failing to pay for them shall also be 
ostracized in the manner described, and no Jew shall 
buy any wares from him or have any commerce with him. 

Moreover if he is imprisoned for such an act, no Jew 
“will be permitted to defend him, so that the Gentiles may 
know that we are not generally guilty of such corrupt 
practices. 


Section 9 


We beg of every Rabbi who is not a member of this 
council, to agree to these decisions and sign his name to 
them, and if he finds any persons disobedient to these or- 
dinances:to refuse to permit such men to intermarry with 


262 JEWISH ‘SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


the community. Any Rabbi who performs a wedding 
for such as disobey these ordinances, and also those who 
intermarry with them, shall be punished and will be con- 
sidered among those who separate themselves from the 
community. 


Section 10 


Any Jew who drinks milk bought from a Gentile,’ when 
the milking was not witnessed by a Jew, shall be punished 
so that no Jew will eat from any of his dishes, and his 
friends and neighbors shall be obliged to give information 
concerning him to the nearest Rabbi. If the transgressor 
be a scholar or a teacher or the head of a Court, or the 
President of a Community he shall be removed from 
his position. 

(Whoever? attempts to make a collection for the sake 
of dowering his daughter, shall be permitted to give her 
no more than one hundred and eighty gulden. If he has 
promised more he shall be given nothing, even though he 
have credentials from all the German Rabbis. Moreover 
no contributions shall be given to wicked men. Of course 
no Rabbi ought to sign any documents in such cases). 


Section 11 


Whereas: we have noticed that many Jews wear clothing 
made after the manner of the Gentiles, and we have also 
noticed that many dress themselves and their daughters 
in costly clothes, therefore have we decreed by a severe 


t Milk bought from a Gentile was considered prohibited because 
of the fear that the Gentile might have mixed witn the cow’s milk 
the milk of an unclean animal. There was no apprehension therefore 
when the animal was milked in the presence of the Jew who bought 
it. In the Hebrew original the statement of R. Solomon ibn Adret 
declaring the vessels in which such prohibited milk was boiled likewise 
prohibited is accepted; for a further discussion of the matter see Yoreh 
Deah 115.1, and R. Solomon ibn Adret’s Torat Ha-Bayit 7.4. 

2 This section was expunged by unanimous vote as can be seen 
from the note at the end of the Hebrew text. 

3 See above chapter VII, Takkanot Shum, section 1, and below 
Chapter X, Text A. 


CHAPTER VIII 263 


decree that within thirty days after hearing this decree 
each community shall take action in this matter. They 
shall also take action against wearing clothes of mixed 
linen and wool, and also regarding the prohibition of usury. 


Section 12 


No‘ Jew in our provinces shall be permitted to publish 
any book, new or old, at Basel? or any other city in Ger- 
many, without the permission of three Courts; if anyone 
transgresses this law and publishes the books without 
permission, no man shall buy the books under the punish- 
ment of excommunication. 


Section 13 


No Rabbi or head of a Court shall extend his jurisdiction 
over communities or districts which are traditionally 
subjects to another court; if any men refuse to obey the 
orders of their court and prefer to choose a Rabbi for them- 
selves, that Rabbi or Teacher shall be excommunicated as 
shall also be those men until the heads of the provinces are 
reconciled to them. ; 

If any court declares any punishment against any trans- 
gressors by authority of our ordinances, all Jews shall be 
obliged to obey the order of the Court. 

We have decreed thay any herem or decree from any 
Rabbi outside of Germany against any Jews in Germany 
shall be invalid. 

Whatever sum is decided upon by us as necessary shall 
be collected each year, and each person shall pay the sum 
assessed against him. If any Jew fail to give their share 
and disobey the agent of the General Community, their 
names shall be announced in every community in Germany. 
The announcement shall take this form: ‘The following 
men, who are mentioned by name, have been separated 
from the remainder of the Dispersion, they may not mingle 


* Compare Chapter X, Text D, section 1. 
2 For the importance of Basel as a centre of Jewish printing in 
this period see J. E. s. v. Typography. 


264 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


or intermarry with us, neither they nor their children, 
and no person may recite for them the benediction of 
matriage. If any one transgresses this order and does 
marry them, whether he act willingly or under compulsion, 
the marriage is declared void.” 

If any member of our people goes before a Gentile Court, 
and the leaders of the Community find it impossible to 
compel him to obey Jewish courts, announcement shall 
immediately be made concerning him in all the communities 
so as to compel such a person to present himself before the - 
court of Frankfort or Worms or Friedburg or to any court 
which the defendant will select. If anyone of those found 
guilty fail to repent within thirty days of the announcement 
he shall be compelled to pay a fine to the Charity Fund 
and to the Government in accordance with what will 
seem fit to the judges. If this will not be sufficient to 
bring him to terms, weshall seek permission from the Govern- 
ment to do justice and to compel the guilty one to defray 
all the expenses. 


CHAPTER IX 
TAKKANOT OF CANDIA 


The following text has been reprinted from the Hoffmann 
Festschrift (p. 267), where it was originally published by 
Dr. H. Rosenberg of Ancona. Dr. Rosenberg did not 
have before him the manuscript of the Takkanot, but a 
copy made from it by this predecessor, Rabbi J. R. Tedeschi. 
At the time of the publication of that text, the manuscript 
was inaccessible, but at present it is in the possession of 
Mr. D. S. Sassoon of London, who very generously sent 
photographs of the missing portions to the present writer. 
Unfortunately the photographs were not sufficiently legible 
. for publication. It seems probable that Dr. Rosenberg’s 
assumption that the defective state of Rabbi Tedeschi’s 
copy was due to the loss of a page, is inaccurate: it is more 
likely that the missing portions of the Takkanot were 
never copied. In any case it is still impossible to reproduce 
more than a part of the original text, although we have the 
complete text of the revisedTakkanot made by RabbiZedaka. 

As has been stated in part I (p. 84) R. Zedaka’s style 
is quite different from that of the writers of the original 
Takkanah. His is that of the Spanish-Italian philosophical 
schools, while the original is in the rhymed prose which 
is more common in France and Germany. Moreover, 
.R. Zedaka changed the order of the sections. In printing 
the texts, I have followed Dr. Rosenberg in placing the 
two versions side by side, and retaining the order of R. 
Zedaka since our text of his revision is more complete. The 
translation, too, follows the text of R. Zedaka. 


TEXT 


Wy by) DOTS 17” now sheta 
Map wend 

12) MwA T"y WIDy-.mywn 

man wd mbstnes yiod yin 
yma) PIA OY 19 4 Aw inap 
71ND) 77D Man byab mara 
bya nx nine dxy any °D2 Nn 
D8 imap wxind onata man 
ADIN NT DID }yo> onayA yn 


Wy" by) ‘Ss pw RY) Jad 
may wx 

soxd pm wo son mNwNT 

pw away 8d axdm am ovn jow 
TN’ 90) APY’ OWA Np OTN 
379 mand maonD Awd. RY 
ona *Syap sanxd ino anand 
inbyd pn yan ma moe by 
377 817 ws px cnbap 7Dw3 


266 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


bs pry xe osm ody 1d wy 
on. mono ovdya jon 
>"y .o0> oon on YN 
nym wy wowed om 95 aAP 
anya doa pen op jad. mn 
ANY DNDN wy? MONT wWIYOM 

DIP ANN WN) TaN 3 


a>vaun ma nanvd 371 
sa>a0n ma oD yt. rwy 
mew mop wdiyo msxod wy 
swxo Ssow maa nanvd ambit 


bas ows pnynd mnexn 13 
Sw] JD awa ino TIA) 
man Syn ox ward ratsn bx 
Nima oman woven 55 xy 
sawa by mhanm mb zy wpa 
sav mand ow imap wwxnd 
moo vb mayw mp °DD oman 
Jawina nay nxxd wD AND” 
werd ipown> opr ow or Tay 
wan wd omon swe dSydan 
pp >pD mm) mm Sy aman 
undap 5d2 am apn odapn 
ans ow away xbw m572 pps 
sia man maw undmp wird 


oxdp Jy (ST TDIwT WD WI) wR 


12: 907 wan qws aan mw 1S 
man 8 moor ox end ANwR7 
TWN 1 TIT ws ins aby 
ASV WO IM Aapy7 DIN yey 
SNWTINNON YY Pay TY MD DIN 
1% any wn nya AyD wan 
DION) NIT maa AM 1b snd 
nem od5ym yo we PD 1'N ON 
wpa am ama Sua5 jan ywra 
DMX jam wad ym way 
YOuRVOTNpT oan) DD DDD 
ova oNxon ono indir ow 
nnxaam bapm b> yap> sian 
bapa nyt mdz ow nrown7 
yp 15 snp) mvy ws india 
ws b> yay ow Sema a 
xb innowa jpop Stand Ose 
by oben dara arp os anym 

Syn 


n>avn ma nino ty.a 47 
In’pN 

ma py bow nyt>b w ny 

75 NW 13 WNIT Ws 77°30 


CHAPTER IX 267 


nbayon > yr jbsn unmna ins 
ysin 727 mp aby pax ama 
naa mews bs own mmpxya 
samay mds yn xd aneow 
maw can bw onnawa mwyny 
as"y oy mdan tataw $y) 
msap> mud cmINN mE x4 
ogee aes COMP aDAypA 
m$> n>pNa NT ADY) Aw 
TWYD INS NT TIT DW CN") 
Ox) NDIA OY PII MIND orn 
npn b> obdiaw joxw ry qn 
PANN) WPM WY API! ATAy 
WIP MD pwyM WI) Wan ANS 
yan 's ow away xdow iez00 ‘Ab 
a pina? mpod 445 oon 
Ona OTIAM Maw oN. 
12 poym xd 3D wd) ooNA 
p> myaon O27 cw nwn aNw> 
mMeyon NA PP TD ow Aw 
meyyd) one yn rmbawr $x) 

Ni mnm oat b> mx 


anya moby Swa sya a1 


pb") mnaw 


Ms ‘IT ay oD yIT— my ay 
oa D> Syons nbmby Send pin 
poin> inrsw powm bsn ona 
pdiy> sem my a par ora ‘Nw 
a"y jadiyn nena by ann yom 
pop ,od> unbzp ww dy won 
odin ty) owpnd sin ow dyin 
anya mpNbon oyn b> Sua 
ox 7 mm ormopaxd) »™ maw 
Pm OYA IYI API) .oaw 
yw aw anND woos) jos 
yo mm mDNboo ayn b> dws 
abyn> prem wadyod) men 


many) 9"m) untn mxp> ONT 
OMwya pn wn wy ‘AD Np 
12 AMDAwW on 7 ODI b> 43 
miyison ommbiys odyind ann 
imasa5> sy qn wy -wE 
17 21 DDD yo ym wMpw 
ow TIAA DIpA O’PoWw) OM DON 
O78 ow nwo xd asd on ova 
nen x> ,955 maNbp 1a mwyd 
xo ony mw o> AN JOA 
nyan oan neaw xd) od5 monn 
mown) jn. ADD) wp? 
p>2p7 n> Jen dynes amon 
NYOITYSAVDTINpAY OD DDD UMN 
mponm nx anwd yaynn yor boa 
n> wows AN OwIn ow sor 
IMpry Ty MpoA ASN Ww NAM 
am 4.37 canw mpon bo 
noyina a7 won odapon dynpn 
1 mwys noaq ond nna ans 

.O17392 Opoy NaN 


LYM ASP oy ofan) ofa 
n¥p ums raw nytd w ny 
M8 Tw TIT ID der yny aD 
Sy ON WN YO" MNAw anya) on 
N12 Ty Pome axwo Sy ainnay 
obeq5 ond) ory pm won 
nyma °D AN) OPI Ww mDNboT 
ornyar ixmb1 12 pnd x2 Sya 
Mm qwon oon xba amp ora am 
pos oN oxysa ox naw SSpw 
ayn OPI) oD DDD MN 
may onw dy Aon amy aDIAn 
way xbsw jomaat mor dy oy 
NTA Wks Aap: ty rdw oy 
myo) arn mxnn maNbo mwyd 
AN bm myp> vb" Mmnaw -a4y3 


268 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


any) w"aya dyapd xbw at 
a 
nay 7395 OTN PAX—.mrow 
3OIN NIT YD) PRI "yan Ty 
9 70> AYIM wen ora AWM 
NIT jnawa mow ans b> aw 
onda jn~dnp 52) news y291 
7? mo tmx b> axy xdi jan 
Snsx ow mway xbw ipn ween 
myn -Ssqwm wens ms diap> 
p> yn ond 7 ayy orn 
OPIN Mw MTS vy OTN 
927 ANY) 13001 NPD "poy dy Iw 
odbsiwd mow Sy owe yen 
724Y2 AMIN) PY ION AN mnw 
Naw YD7AY Pwwa ws) ,AMI or 
2 PwWRD WAY AP ms 


Qf93 Jon Aram by PMS MDW 


Sx orn mp) aqy °>d>x wr oD 
my Tay xd ome rods mxpo 
oan -p xd op aw an ox nba 
DIST OPT 12 XXYD) Nawd 

mwyds orm ond 


pyar y"'ya Syapd sow a1 
WoT WRI Awe °D nyT> Ty 
ynwad NIM) waqpa moxw yr 
yoy °1aD oa 7D yy? .unddo) 
w’ya om opm ms 1>°ap 
NN? °D JPN. VSwWOM D> v"Py> 
py: om orm wip sro ay ow 
yoD07 wy Nnown) naw °D7xD 
Wk AN amy WS ms jpnd 
Ow TIpOAOTyIoI) OwIM ninawa 
sxnim Syne wr 55 axdm jronw 
byapd mD72 Dipa Away Nb ira 
opp ows sawn nan oN 
oN’ 9x8 [7 on bss 7 wEwon 
yo xd jyo> an vo ya "ya 
‘a> naw D7¥ 5" pIw vw" NNDwD 
PS WS IkSD ‘my man xd 
ayn on? 


mbann aya 77) 

xona pay Syw nytd w ny 

TTY. WS ww OWNM 2A 
O’pD) UMS 13) MIN OWS 7IN 
sews mb|nn py ina ans n>>ena 
pds oon) am> warnn 7a 
oyna pnynd on $5 1 awd 
ST NAA ww) Ww? 7AM 
ny N22 YNND ODD ‘My 'm 
on) owns mnava nbpnn 
M2 OND JIT WD’ oD OYA 
oon an Sx upon) ODT) 
msxoty 5x 125’ 07D) TAN NVIN ON 
a9 man Npnwa oO 


CHAPTER IX 269 


02> ory mow ans pa ndyin 
nyowd nsno aya qbin 
NID PR WR AMIN mboz 
yw xd) 555 o> noNwi werd 
12 Wwe Spay xonz nits oad bx 
nyd M2 ON oatya o>w) mA 
odxy nx ow xrxom onvad opds 
sx p> omy pwd nbpnq nya 
728 pnd wa wR onyn 
maw) 14555 15 on meyim 
TY Poy wns nn pn wwe 
oats 72a Twy SDS wor Two 
pn nxbod onbsn maa wen xb 
mand arows opty som mbpnn 
ns xxombo ony nopp 12 
monn nya opbxn maa onxy 
onvn Shawn mnaws yp 
ombxann ana 1d) (oinm...45D 
3777 WS? DIN) MINA HMDS 
MSN MNT wry ym ow Nd 
Sypon 1 nvw 22 ANP wpwN 
MYA UNNAP APD Ip] °D AN 
wm imp a> maw yo menbdn 
mbpna nat nm bs wad mow 
wnsy xxv nym ondas rab 
OwIs MDD ANN. wx 7p) 
pylons Mnawsa on mnbdy 
pa pam Stan non aon xb 
sp ratoan Sinn ow par espn 
paymamsra .od>5> ny sim IND 
MPa maT AM nnyom Spdipon 
SYN ID UNS TMX bd PN 
722v2 mE wpyn = pwrmd 
aS amy unyt xy D> nbxyinn 
mp myxp> nbs wiys cam 
nna indap p> ops nena 
oyw p> yea nx opbs 
ananm monn ows = ob>xyn 
by maid) 4009 ns and mond 


270 


JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


pvp °D Woy nYnaa wyT 7aDw 
ow NS own odin) wn may 
M87 TwRd) woxsy o& ODDIOM 
Swoon np apy jynb aim 
DD DDD WAIN IPMwWI WD YW 
wy] WN FADIA DIpa opow 
xo adm om opmow mwy> wr 
TN>ApP °wIND OTN Ow NWI To 
oyna) owt mnava orxxd 
mao 1 nym onban Srpn sino 
many 2720 oOnXX Ty nmDD 
bs 1m nw Py? ws ans od) 
yar pyo bs yoyp owd rab 
nynam pn bs nooo x5 as wpbs 
syd ee py own Sx xbdy 
poisy mS>y1 apo owas yynndy 
apy’ ova osnpin ber ny >> 
nyo Ss vane ovn opds say 
“yx wIp> yTAD jDwy DIpN) "7 73 
TY ONT INIT IYNA NIT ws ONyD 
10 OWT INN) Mow py) 
Ss oo mpd oxen ym mdbpnn 
oayn obi) nym owin mynn 
bx mpd oyav pr WS Oy 
YP monn onya ow oO Mynr 
oan nde saws nyaw oan 
1 39D now) neapD noIn yn 
nba TD pan ya maNdm 
bs ynnn ond prppand mbwann 
ma bx opxy xxond ‘nm aw 
‘m 'm wena ma95  opbxa 
smw> ‘mone nytd> mpT aAyIDN 
enpona > owid Na INxID 719) 
n> any pox any) pax many 
mdi7 ADNDD) UR¥D)] NAA AA 
yobs mmnd mbpxoi wp wx? 
danva "72D 2ad now ry IW 


CHAPTER IX 271 


OM ital yaleebala 
to? xO Onn sTya—.nww 
WD JD Onova oPNWwW) maa 
by oD nvN oY myo p> 
781 poem pbx oN TA 
nw a 171553 > abynd ow OTN 
osbon nbsp) moam nmiosp 
by yonw ,7’2) 77 nan ,opsNMN 
by) WIP? °D Dw 7) Pw TMT 
bad wpn a"y .nd dyn an myn 
ma ya xd) ama on bs snp 
1D mpINd o> Ty AMNId Id DS 
xo ox oD mpaM nwa wopbn 
pox) mex NS NIT InN 
max) mei op> wi yp amnn> 
mwITP mt a7 un abiys wimax 
ODN US ON AWD) yp) mw 
mom a7 awd aindap aya 
opsn od cm) o> wor or 
niyo) Ss nn aw ONT 
oy 


Leer yl ealal’ 
53172 79 Np» S178 
NYO TN TY TTR NNW OID 
wp onrm aneapnm metp 
mow 'y) 47> amo. Foxy wip 
OWN MAN WT JD3 CR 'D 
ory> moa inna) ooxy> awp 
Swen bow poxy by rponm 
ay anstwo mao nay ba 
ma am1 SDs) mbna inDIA ny 
mr qa7a yi sx para pppa 
sx5 pw Jean araxs> jpn 
OwbIA W"p) Oxpry aapy SND mT 
MX OMNI wea yry oon 
1DINww ANS AIT ap °D Abu 
mpd sad myx apa dp ox 
saw Fa) TT nn Abva om a 
xo oem ona °> amp aim by 
Tp nm vex xo yim onws 
apo -wM pyo ww oan mdy 
DWIN) TOTT DAN IT) Ow AWYyD 
yam pre) ad>nna Syda ows 
sy wea mbp omn one by 
oven maa oi>°> noxya ibpaw 
Ona NS wp) ow inv» boNn 
payia ayn nands o> pawn 
N23 WN mN|T IT aw Nd yanpa 
savay 7295 ooxy dorm sy 12 
ow 1b 1298 9D CT TIyA Apa 
ont sad wxy yi xd on 
Sym amas mr xd xo 8m 
WY’ Tom AMY ne mbdy> mninx 
may mm ona xb ayn 
DY Pan rw pa mo ID AIWwA 
DAN WD Ip DT) Ppa py 
Mpon myd) wei mys dy 
xb on) @drn pao anedy did 
>> nadvnm onawno nxdoni 
Nand ADDN AWS wpa on 03 


272 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Q"D2 on Ar aT) bw peso mow 


mand ‘7 ppxm abs dyn norya 
1) NNN wR Ayan Nom 1 IDR 
my7p a> ws 5’y inxw Sop 
snd 's nyta wos wom 1 
ow mxdsm ornow wwrd sadn 
maa pid oxwn av xd Jw 
DYN ON) ADIND IID or TY YON 
sno’ pied yb Fx) nD 
OM WS Ovo yo ow nnpd 
pw is on ory b> by 
7’ TT AN pr bad xodyo 
bra 055 omainn oy mdppim 
orpinn maa nob> ond a xw 
pi>°> snw mm otad ond madd 
n> nvnow n’n n> Syd nexdy 
32 yp os $"M oxw Jpn Syn 
‘6 pertp) oad inawo mr dno 
INTIME Ww WY Mw ATM, '3 
op inom > ay nab now wry 

NTN. Ms op> wp 


a'aot anon nb aya a 
ad Sy wownaw nytd w ny 

wos aNaom wpyn $5 pwnd 
Sx) Jnxo 222 by maz JxTw 
wpyon nawn7 nym bs 1Atsn bx 
mv mwnh mPa man Sn 
Tym > AS md>y wn pom bd 
m7 wis pos n-vna mwrpA 
pws Sownw SI ANT mMsxoM 
mwyin ton mb mxow xin 
oD TAMP|T vn we yowod 
bs awh why ma ds nobd 
NIT wea np> mop TwSX ADIN 
n’o. mso xv aby ,oTN b> yD 
bod yrp ww yD aI nn yn 
ny Soa ume we ox Sow Sya 
nvowa waANM wow wws) 
namin b> oy) nx nawnaA AIDA 


CHAPTER IX 273 


pind) arow> aN WR TPT 
WIND DWIS OND) ord 72 
M25 on ans Odwon un>np 
ons> nexina onndo Ssnw ono 
pyin) tas ado ond ma ds 
pp nay by obona onnddn 
onoxbna opoynn mn oy odie 
bs yaw xd) adSnnaD ons) 
mony mnan xd nyt xd) oad 
b> no Os owanD NIT NIT oyaD 
pawn mon ambspa AS enn pon 
ODN DYyIT ONNDT nawns 
bixw oy) mim) ms maa wn 
xo Nay °D Fw pw mNN wey 
adie nyaDs yin aT uN 
nyt moon bs sim mn oN 
soo pmannd poxp 959 Nn 
nya1d ms at on b> obs 
ywa> °> ymny °y;n boa avin 
b> wb) Pa WR °D) MA parwa 
ons Syp we awa b> mn on 
(D3) USD? WX TINT Ib Ow 
navn naan bez b> -pwrmd 
nnawon man an Os tad) 
D3 DIPAW OPO OID MIs 
wor 92 WN My] TADWA AWS 
supna axdm orn mwynd amyo 
pdiy end indrp wind OTN wD) 
youn ons mbyni mw won ja 
bob wenn wei nw Amon 
mw a xd moxbo bya wr 
a> yi nap ows insNboa poynn 
byann> smn nya a7 WP AN 
Ins @ppynon $2) NIT INDN2DD 
non n> ws ay udp oD>noM 
a2 ON) Pym nad pin innsw 
Innap ope ty im>?>o wasyn 
onbon nay Jip ops TWDy” 
Winn orryo nom paanna “sy 


274 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


spwhr ond ainb xbw at 
ond 

sins ow may xbd—.newdy 

spv>) ond sind jam jn> oya 
D’pwn dD on ony and) and 
Sion y'n OT OMX DANN ond 
> jovi %>S5> ny sim own 
Syvas 17 Scena mds ps yor’ 
(2.4. mY Ind nw Sx 
pam Tdiy wy xd Sse max 
mvp mI OTAaYA pa X¥D) Ny 
p72» omy 7D ND on wndvT ON 
wdyo pnand jy by ovo ‘mM 
may dip wynrr Syn ord) nan 
prasxy Syi wby wap jor 
movin b> so Fy ya 0°29) WI 
MINIT mpnT net AX Pan 
sanaady aby pon adda mm 


IMI) NDR Ox WX WRX OID 
yin mys ds ansn xd ar morn 
mx’? yorxdo 2D wom. anp xd 
ops Sy wont Soa wnnwd wd 

23597 JANA FAN yD NNW 


Mont) 1 Vvalesai. 
on uMNtaw nyt> w ny 
m>pia Ws ONAN NINA AyIDD7 
minya nyo7 0 uNTyA wy? 
nos0n bon by onyad mbpnn 
Wra xxom ay ws b> Sy 4m 
yoy xd os ond away bab 
sex draxvotnpad mnwx 7277 
Imwan> wen oN OFA Ow aT 
w ps oni ime ond asin map> 
m8 770° oN) imwyn yiord 1S 
ona ny dy on IDI OD 

Ja nya om wr ib snp) 


ond Sins sow an 


pw xamd) jNoDw woDDn Thy | 
xia ow Sin yup undp 10 's 
and) ond apwh oxwn sa xd 
OTN OF ONpY m3 7A oOny7 
> ond OTT ODIDY ADA IT 
o>>np on prann ond oapwan 
Oy moaxw ony x2) ona ‘7 
px) arp aT Nd aby wy? xd 
bdr ny Sy Sr ox TaD) 6.2.72 
mvayn bop on Nine own 
ps Sm 32 1908) C'S 1D NOY YD) 
Cs ‘2 perp) own ddna pp pn 
owas wy ns 7 ‘Mm 


CHAPTER IX 275 


(oaNiao nnn Sy uans n ‘ 
bop OININT UMN INST OVS 
onayn omytp mbnp yar 
nxt 15 amp iypds ar ar mr 

oo; 


syo Donna Sn An oy mupnm mbxa cno2DA pny’ 73 72 78 
sex Jaan mynad maada wpn wey ws yay -wrp A'NTIp vn 
ai 2) 

ppp arybs 72 mnND 

DDD PRY Ja OMI 

DDD ann wat Ton ya 7ryd>s 

ODD FDP 9 307 ya TNA pnw 

ppd JIN pny’ 72 now 7a WINw 

DDD NAN wow 

D200 ym yD I Fann ya comeT ws 

p00 a’ndr ADY ann ja mobw ra coNDPNP DIND 

p>on yon motay 7a ye 

p00 ann ja wx aT 

m’DDD WPA AY :377 ya po 

DID IT Ja NY IAW IP NT TIDY NNTIAN yor RTT 

ppd yw Ja NBIIT Oxyow 

p00 DMD apy 73 on 

ppp my ow 9 atm ja bydnn 7a Pow 

mbapm $2 onans oyna Sy om>y aapi wep nupn wwyn 1s 

nmwp mxdo ant awy ms 7D oD) AN TIP NA MwA 


TRANSLATION 


These Takkanot were made in the Communities of 
Candia and were re-established among our Communities 
by R. Zedaka. They are the ten ordinances which the 
princes, the leaders of the children of Israel, established 
for us that we may observe all that is written in them, for 
in that way shall we succeed and thus shall we attain wisdom. 


1. Ordinance in regard to renting houses. 


Firstly! have we ordained that henceforth no Jew shall 


t Compare Takkanot ascribed to R. Tam, Text M, p. 181, section 
2 and Takkanot of Italian Communities, 1554, p. 302. 


276 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


be permitted for any reason to offer a higher rental for any 
house which is rented to another without the consent of 
the tenant. If the owner of his own accord ask an increase 
in the rental or demand that the tenant leave the house, 
no one shall be permitted under the pain of excommunica- 
tion to rent the house from which the tenant has been 
evicted for a whole year from the time of the eviction. 
The new tenant may however come to an agreement with 
the former tenant whereupon he may remain in the house. 
If however, the new tenant is a wicked person and refuses 
to satisfy the evicted tenant, the contestabile or any other 
of the officers of the Community shall be empowered to 
gather the whole community to one-of the Synagogues and 
there they shall reveal his wickedness to the whole com- 
munity and he;shall be declared one ‘‘who broke a hedge 
in Israel’. Every man in Israel shall become obliged to 
separate himself from him, no one shall mingle with him 
in his joys, nor come near to him in his sorrows. 


2. Ordinance in regard to the cleanliness of the Ritual 
Bath. 


Whereas some of our people transgress the law by per- 
forming all their needs in the ritual bath thinking that 
it is intended for the use of their unseemly occupations, 
and as a result they pollute and defile it until its waters 
become green and like mud. Therefore we agree that 
from this day and hence, no one shall be permitted under 
penalty of excommunication to do any work in the Bath 
either washing clothes or soaking skins or washing dishes 
or soaking the stoppers of bottles or any similar work. In 
order to make certain the carrying out of this provision we 
ordain that the contestabile shall be obliged to see that the 
Bath is cleaned every two months. This shall be done by 
closing the door of the well which is in the court of the Bath 
until those who draw the water and the other workers who ' 
use it most shall clean the Bath. Then he shall open the 
door for them to use the well as is their custom. 


CHAPTER IX 277 


3. Ordinance in regard to Sabbath and Fe&tival eves. 


Whereas we have seen that some of our people cast aside 
the righteous path and on the eve of the Sabbath or Festi- 
val they continue at their work until the setting of the sun, 
and their eyes and their hearts are set on the completion 
of the task in which they are engaged, and this is even 
more so when the master is a Christian and at times when 
the day is misty this results in violation of the Sabbath; 
therefore do we ordain and decide under penalty of ex- 
communication, besides their transgression of a Rabbinical 
commandment, that no one whether male or female of 
our Community, shall be permitted to do any work after 
midday on the Sabbath eve in accordance with the com- 
mandment of our Sages. Certainly when the shades of 
night are spreading and the day has gone each man shall 
turn to the commandment of God and do no more work. 
There shall not be included in this ordinance those who 
draw water for the public needs for the Sabbath or similar 
permitted occupations which must be performed and which 
may be done’. 


4. Ordinance against lodging complaint on Sabbath or 
Festival eve. 


Whereas we have seen the evil custom among us which 
is our shame and our disgrace, that many of our people 
bring their fellow Jews to Court on Sabbath or Festival 
eves, in such a way that they are delayed there till near 
the time for the sanctification of the day, and they are 
thus prevented from making preparations for the Sabbath 
and for the rejoicing of the festival; therefore have we 
agreed to mend that which they have perverted, by or- 
daining that henceforth no Jew among us shall be per- 
mitted under penalty of excommunication to bring his 
fellow Israelite to any Court, whether Jewish or Gentile, 


* Rosenberg refers here to the statement in Shibbale Ha-Leket 
forbidding, in the name of R. Natronai Gaon, both men and women 
to engage in work on Friday afternoon, or on the afternoon of any day 
preceding a festival. 


278 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


on the Sabbath or Festival eve.t This is ordained in 
order that he may not be prevented from enjoying the 
festival and that he may also prepare the needs of the 
Sabbath for the Lord, and that the Community of the 
Lord may not be like sheep which have no shepherd. 
5. Ordinance in regard to Prayer. 

We must further call attention to the great sin of which 
we are indeed guilty and because of which we are being 
corrupted: namely, that we cast aside the matter of prayer 
which we are obliged to maintain in order to declare the 
unity of our God and to exalt Him and to purify our souls. 
Many of us at the time of prayers onSabbaths, New Moons, 
Festivals and Appointed Seasons, go about through the 
vineyards, gardens, and orchards, some of us turn toward 
the shore of the sea, to boats, and some of us go rather to 
the law-courts, or even on the streets and in the market- 
places, meandering uselessly, merely following the de- 
sires of the heart,satisfying the bodily cravings which pass 
away and are lost, which have no connection whatever 
with the eternal soul. They do not take to heart the grave 
sin of which they are guilty in forsaking the house of God, 
absenting themselves from it at the time of prayer, to 
such an extent that even when ten men are sought they 
are not to. be found in the Congregation. This is all the 
more to be decried on the Sabbath and Holidays. 

In view of all that has been said, we decree that hence- 
forth no member of our Community shall be permitted 
under penalty of excommunication to leave the Congre- 
gation on Sabbaths, New Moons or Festivals except for 
a compelling reason, before the completion of the public 
prayers in the morning. As soon as one awakes from sleep 
he shall proceed to the house of our God; certainly he 
may not go to the shore or to the suburbs. Indeed even 
the pious students who are not in the habit of turning to 
bodily pleasures at those times, shall be obliged to interrupt 
their study without delay when the Hazzan sends for them 
at the time that he reaches the prayer of Nishmat.? 


* Sabbath 1.2. 
2 For a similar ordinance compelling people to attend public 
worship see Ordinance of Castile, p. 355. 


CHAPTER IX 279 


6. Ordinance in regard to affianced men. 


Our ancestors had thecustom that noaffianced man should 
pass the house of his betrothed until the time of the Huppah. 
Even if they met on the street they would turn in opposite 
directions. But it has happened recently within ten years 
that this regulation has been broken down. Men of Belial 
have broken down the hedge made by the forefathers and 
have been so light-headed as to enter the houses of their 
future fathers-in-law and eat and drink there. It often 
happens as a result that indiscretions are committed, and 
this has led even to an attempt at abortion and to infant- 
murder. Therefore have we all agreed to bring the matter 
back to its original custom, that henceforth no afficanced 
youg man shall be permitted to enter the house of his 
father-in-law until the performance of the Huppah. If 
for some compelling reason he will have to enter the house 
he shall be obliged to take two of the officers who will 
be appointed to look to the execution of these ordinances 
or any two other people, with him. Those who are studying 
with their fathers-in-law, that is to say, those who must 
go to the houses of their fathers-in-law in order to do their 
studies, they alone shall be permitted to enter the houses 
of their fathers-in-law, for the power of the study of the 
Torah is such as to weaken the force of the tempter. * 


7. Ordinance in regard to Burials. 


Whereas there are some members of our Community who 
cast aside the honor of the dead of Israel, failing to attend 
their funerals when they are being carried to their eternal 
home, and not only do they abstain from attending the 
funerals in order to spare themselves the trouble, but they 
continue to engage in their work and their art as before; 
they pay no attention to the fact that death is a natural 
thing which extends to all living things; and whereas indeed 
every person ought to be thinking at all times that there 
is but a step between him and death; therefore do we agree 
and decide that from this day hence, when any member 
of our community of the age of five or more, dies, it shall 

* Compare Takkanot of Corfu, p. 316, section 1. 


280 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


be forbidden for any man under penalty of the excommuni- 
cation to engage in any work for any reason; verily he shall 
be obliged to cease work, he,t as well as those who work 
- with him, and those who are being taught by him until they 
bring the dead body from his last dwelling place beyond 
the gate of the city. If any reason prevents him from 
accompanying the funeral party till the cemetery he shall 
stand at some place near those who are escorting the body 
until the dead body is removed from them and then they 
shall turn about each one to his work and art. 


8. Ordinance in regard to declaration of a herem 


Whereas we have noticed the blameworthy usage of 
announcing a herem for any light reason and closing syna- 
gogues at the times of prayers; therefore have we decreed 
that no one among us shall be permitted to declare a herem 
unless he first make the matter known to the contestabtle 
of his day. If they desire to permit him to announce the 
herem for some reason that appears right to them they will 
permit it; otherwise he must refrain from doing so; and if 
he opposes the command of those honored men, they shall 
declare his sin in public and he shall be called a rebellious 
man among the community of the Lord. 


9. Ordinance not to defraud Gentiles. 


We have further agreed that henceforth no member of 
our Community whether young or old, — shall be 
permitted to lie to Gentiles or to deceive them, 
whether in regard to what Jews buy from them or 
in regard to what the Jews sell them. Those who deceive 
Gentiles profane the name of the Lord among the Gentiles 
and against them the Prophet calls out, ‘‘The remnant of 
Israel shall not do iniquity nor speak lies’? and our Sages 
have said that the sin of profaning the Name is more severe 
than any of the others. 


t Moed Katan 27b. 
2 Zeph. 3.13. 


CHAPTER X 


A. TAKKANOT OF ITALY OF THE YEARS 1416-1418. 


The following ordinances are those passed by a meeting 
of General Commissioners for all the more important com- 
munities of Italy. This Commission was created by a 
synod that had been held at Bologna in 1416. In ac- 
cordance with the mandate placed upon it by the synod of 
1416, the Commission met at Forli, in 1418, to discuss 
the affairs of the Jews, especially with regard to the success 
of Martin V in obtaining universal recognition of himself 
as Pope. 


In the course of introducing their own decisions the 
Commissioners quote that part of the decisions of 1416 
by which their Commission was created. We have no 
other information as to what transpired at the synod of 
Bologna. 


The text is here reproduced from a Halberstam Ms.°: 
now in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary 
of America. This manuscript was used by Halberstam 
himself in printing the text of the Takkanot in the Graetz 
Festschrift (p. 53 ff.). The text as there given has been 
carefully compared with that of the manuscript and a 
few changes have been made. In spite of the paucity of 
the improvements required in the text, it was thought best 
to include the text and translation in this volume for the 
sake of completeness. On the other hand it is not been 
thought necessary to reproduce the various enlightening 
notes added to the text by Halberstam, and the letter of 
Guedemann which is published with the text in the Fest- 
schrift. The student who is desirous of delving further into 
the story of the men who took part in the synod will refer 
to the original articles. 


282 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


TEXT 
| NY 
bby b5 mw Toyody andy merpr anmin aad) ‘nm ‘a asd 
b>) NDIND p’pm Toyndi ppndr »nbyn »p> ams 55 py py Sor Sdn 
nava 72 o'n ums dt pa AD oy unyna £1? wpm mbap axw 
pinand n’yp) ods ‘7 nw pro wind mn” sine yo wand ow 22 
mnanm ws yy (~Sox mbap maa cma seyo. ppn by amon 
nw> an yp) opbs ‘7 mw nav wana mendyaa wyi ww mozp73 
wny wb -paxw moa sn mosonn 
pyr ooosn> ADaX Aywm ymdbianna JpAnD yom wms 3 
xow x metpa mbapa toyo qwoa ans p> oan wad xx” Ws 
oinnn by oxsm ums wea wos0n nea Ams Nd) pap wa aT 
[WS NINPDW) NINDIN. NVIDIA NTS) NT) Noa >>> ono 
wanm wisn $55 $'5'5 ow sawy om S59 ond) ory ow ao omdy 
nnd oxapnn JAX WT ya °D OPYya ANY ON) Pw Ops APSA 
yxion oypoa tyi> o»d557 ones ayn ,prpa by soy msi 71D 
Jn¥ DD poo Mad oa mw AN ow noKdnd yrod ompinn pw) 
OID DDT AYA AID wD AAP oma AIDY Mbson noyind yen 
pou "7 ar qatd wo. ws yx ant Pa wwy lary myom 
392 Onn myom wesy o»5$595 onooM .Toxrnpo 5"r omw ‘p23 
m>anvm Fan mean $2) .wawn yo aye Fas> mbapr ndyind max 
m>rpn wep aye mbapm ppm qax oan ww ad crya ANY WE 
SNY IN ‘NW }OIP mapm yo map> on osm ww ob> »’y menpA 
nya? 1d yom xbw onox mbyinm map 1b ap od52q onno7 jp 
nyT WAM wipoa mw wo ynnn toys aynm sian mb>sanwza 
PTD yT) nD. nD) Nowa p>. mbwa cw A Nw won AM pyran 
nox ops 'o pam rm °>$55 ana opm new mds 
S'ny xp1a7 obw 'D2 NBII "MN OM "ID NDNA 
S SNY TDDa DTD 7D) 
NINA] NDI "2X1 NTP O'DA NDT OFAN ID NTA 
br mw D"DI XPD pny’ 1 
S"} ono "D232 IN Aywo pds "Iw NTPpA 
S mwo Y'DD2 pM AY Ww 
b"t mw “oD NpIIN oxrp moby r'o wndiaa 
mayin wnns p23 PPT moby "a 
yap vad ayy n'pa dian on bymp "a R™INDINA 
NINA) AY) NIT TY D'D2 Nam dx "AD 
moa 77 > xprin adbwo o'D2 pny’ "ID my'‘ppwa 
xp’pa 777 >’ ennp a'poa Sym ‘1 


CHAPTER X 283 


nbyinb qaux ‘nd $$on nom ‘on yon TT YM ONw WwIDM 
yrnpdy mad mmaap) Nod 'p'pT arn NPY Myo wx? mMompnr 
a20n7 pw? >"y mwapA mbapa an yam pawn D1 DAY D> pr 
em 
on wmaap boa wand mwys sata ody oD ws wR cons 
nnd oS ypa ap tynnd wad oprysa aurw ‘nm ayd$on onnnn awd 
van ynbw onxp) IN aNxp) Ww? ‘2a Mbapa orp 222 aw WD 
DYyD 773 Wn wxwi dy 90] DMN .nD OXsod oF MNwAT 
wid mbw> p’Dy pay 1D PNT 1) NWOT AT ANN) woe oye 
> mwydr uy Sy ppb wpad mma on ar on 499 aVEDNT 
ANd NNT PS OAS PNT DD Ow OYp>y OwIN OVP? »7272 
ya mbw maxi pax ma panes xbdi pope wos xa anr 
saya on mm otata mewys mo sn mex aya adswn b25 
wea te ‘am mbnpa mbs> soy ppn Sy mo sa mins MNx17 
navnd nx mbapm Sop ans va ADIN > TP Any Mary wo2DM 
NOI DOT nea 77D DD Momam onam poor bo FbRd xm 's NPIT 
onbwe mew oms S90 mad oxm 's Nprt> cP ay marw woDp7 on 
aNSIAT ANT Dy .adyod) 'xpr7 pnd ws ‘PIT p"n on nnn wy Is 
noadod many myn yw mood) ontpym pin n>sa? AD NT 
aNO Ty ‘DIT p'nD mT nnn ww ws ibwn mew 9>w weDD7 132 
by mpw man Nays '8 XprT ONIN ANS Naya nny wo 1» 'NpyT 
swe vm .b95 Abxd oxm ‘prt ‘x pawnd poo aya i> yuow Ap 
NON Man Naya ‘8 ‘NPT yqp aT ox mweby NPT mNOD wT 
ADV) man Maya 'Nxprt sn yp and a Minar 999) ADT yoy 
nye Twa arp Ndr bon awn DD pond Maya yaw mp Fy 
ook ow xd> onan xb SyS anon ston °DD pon py tpn) onan 
NOI DOT aN yan aM anes yo oad onw apts Sapp on dn 
mim pom mad oa n> Ny yn) WS OMS IW ATO PY 45a wR 
na xa rs ow a po $x womb. mad DAMN yr nA 
sary mo $5 'x b> yrds yd anon atom p> ima ran TP 
ob> mynn wry JDIND (Nad Naw IN NIN TT IN JONI oy NITE 
nexy som moy'pows >" on Senay a'23 'xvr Syemp Tp PO gTD2 
[wx Tom °ps) Naa Oxo ovd$on ono 19 nw ADT °DD 
DPMIID) AYP) NIP) NOMI WaYY 7D IN .ANy omy an 
b> yap xa mynan yaad ond awp ws on? manpm nyipom 
> OND TwWY? NIM NON pp’ yoxIT PD oA MwoIponD Mary nD 
py man mbnpno ansom mbapm b> Mm 2nya 19 and] Wwsx 77 
3yn2F Won *D> ‘7 DDT yD pon yrwad ty bo me nam> ‘nA DDT an 
boa pa anon prand pa orya aN yy yp) Ty 222 Moywa Dy? 


284 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


my on’ya medyn by ann mbapm tw piya omrya mx Ty DIK 
3 nw nav wina xvyndiaa wyw moon b> orpd) awed ww20n 
55's yep mw b> Ty wT yl No Ow AwyT Own TY yp) ods 
ayy wa nT NDA DoT 1 opdm 17D xdw oms Sow woD07 ny 
mo ond yn) wwe mon p> oma dyed ‘na sory pom °an iaynm 
py man mbnpn b> -™m "Dy apn woden mam nona owaw Ty 
owl Oo .’n7 pom nya pay 7 boa oxoxdy) ony> ‘na ox 
mobwa ssa nya ‘na xo oem mad ‘nz opm °an iarnm 554 
‘> maton tu mwydy Sapd xd) ped xd ow new ban ow Son 
~ yord: pind ry yarn mbnrpa $21 ‘nm myzpma ains7A 7707 
0) .w’ya p"Dy opdn wap man nppa aqDDA IwIY Ty ONXII 
N07 Ton opm xdbw >-"pys ‘nq nsDNA NDA NA TID pays 
ops) awed mbnpn 55 1arnmwy wss0n Any am orn ay modwa 
“709 "239 on Aa aM 49> aM Adbnp Soaw pays sian IDA 
Ipnd ‘nA wor PA Mw nD WAM wan adbapA soya appa ip2ww 
maw ‘7 PD) Aywm qosm ps ondw Abmpa mom cynd1 mupn 
moon sion oy man Sapam bo om ome ns ao xd ws ody 
Oyen maoNA aw Ty Nia ww mew pyr ty S52 oranpon 
apm ' mxo wp 

my ow ow mp x> ‘no yom oben say ormow uos0n ny 
waa pingd -pown MA 1139 MIP OFA Ww MoMyT raring 
x5 on jonsi xd) omay xb mpnen oy imera xd) ida xd 
p77 vavino xd oon ‘na mbapan mawmnnD oY ew oR’ TP 
‘PINXD pny ows xd) MNXYaIpA PINs pins OWA pins? DIM 
sya si xd. ya ons edi snd xd ans pins owa xd opdpn 
58 .2on8 maa xd) aaa xd ox: oy xdy omy oy xd ons 
xa myvap wba "ppom pinyz aM mE»ap) mxbav oy pina 
's Dypa pny’ xdw cxanay pins> opnyen oxen po mpinsm cnen 
nyiynn wap) ny 85) Ins pinxa ow iw ADD »y>1a nyaAIND ANP 
opdpm pinxa o pins> oN yo om wdn oN Ow aT yn ON IN 
8 ooNd '8 pings 'S wownp pr ipny” xXdw cxina onyx yard “1D 

371 PN) PAY SAP’ pnxn opayo nvm mo.0nn by rnyr boy 
‘na wny 1255 nayw oyp b> dy sen yn np 's ‘prt pnp on 
M>ap7 arn ‘7 papa yp> ax xd on) .o73 IpNY’ Wwe nw yA 
mwyd xd1 n’oa moap> immr xd aowy pao wy obumd xbwy sen 
oan "sy nwa yoy» >>) na wnym yr esp iow ay mod) 
vnym pipa oana 7at mbad a»nn nem mosonn by mayw ya 
AD 

mssnmnbady pirmds ow ww oy nod yx aad ynond ot oy 


CHAPTER X 285 


ney sy ow awy xd na yom odwn sy opnow wos07 on ory 
wn wiady ow PIM oD 90 cawvinn xd) ‘nm mbdnpr arn 
MmMnp my mrensan yy Nden sanw wis Wr os pr m7 ow rox 
D7 AWN DD wWyw OTDAM nT Ow wy XIN ow ona ww xd 
myir onan yw qe awadsd yS5y nw onda ans yaxn wx ‘np 

JOT ANND) TIX ODIND onN OaboA Po on MND 


xd) opSear xd oma mado ow mee xdo wre xd wade xd on 
eyo xdy ody'en gdp yy eda aan vor gd) oo’yn xd) ord pa 
xdw osanay omwyd ws owadd idoy moans mnyo oD yn ON IN 
sypno ondit wia>om op nwa pinay My ow on “wadna wow 
2799 TD Nia wiado7 wr 


mwadn wx oT MM» OP ona OY wy) TaDw OWN wad oy 
yino vbia ona nex> maw aran xo qx onsnD onan qn oms 
po? nan ANwNo yond’ 8d o8 OoNaT enn|ss ona msonnd xd) onad 
no) .ina onya 95> yon ayy Now paya propo ody mwabdn os 
myn pina oms mwadn os wir Yorn wy) rasw Ow Mp 
Jos aN? bw ond b> 


apy b> 55> mot owe widn ow wo cw EY owe wad> xd on 
wo wads ow mwabn xd own jor .yina $55 wa aby prya xd ox 
Nn? oy .yina omya apy b> 555 ay Ndwy prya 8 ON mdi wid IN 
‘N CNND) INST ma enna os °D Ady AyD 13 ww wnady mwabdn 
Soin, Saya 


nan nv xb) mow by sadip ow mNw) mes ow xwn xd ao: 
nan nena no>> mse arnn yad> mbon condi pws n Sy mdi 
Lomdy epyxn wow axdm ov owownr oy owdw sy apys onda mdi 
Spwn mirw FADD oy ornad pind mbwo mon ow own am xd o 
pw wid mDIDD Nw nT Ann xd on nypny AwwH aNY ADIT 
V7 

ant IMS nyavs any wwoN FIT OPMyaxNa Pw Nw Nd on 
xO ow oO) .PT onwD ISTH YIXN APSA IMIS IN” Nya MN) 
inva 555 's oyea wow ox mya one any aYewn 


sny 7027 Spws anw naw AyIXT NS AIT ow Amnon xd 321 
anya 55 nypns mwyn 


owiaden piyo wm rie moon ‘ate jat by samyn bo 
pnw os FAoD '»pdia mowy yrned> ayn nes wrx pa ‘nd oweonm 
DN) Ow) Tya Irom owmm «ayy oyp 59d wan dyn nmpd 
yoy aowy pro wy odem> xow wan nbapn ayn snow on am 
_ ayer raw ay md) mwyd xdo n’oa mpd wn 


286 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


mana ow wove any omad pin own moon xbw wos07 2 
smyo 7275 ondor myqyi one oy nox 

Sms poya ond -wexw> mama opwa dry 447 mobn xd oy 
Dw) Ty. Pn owNM.’nT AIT DD man m1 pA yor ond 
.owmadnn piya ‘nm pip. 

p77 nvaps waDym 8d on nny mans mat D> 8d own on 
‘nov a7 OwIX Twwo ANY oDINa nyo cna qwsS onad pind whi 
O07 OD YR WS VyND OND -Yya ANTY DIpA mx 737d 

oan) o25 oan nmyom mpink wy ws Ws DD DO) 
M2D TN ODIND UMS WR ONT TwyD AN) ond>> TDD ANY Mwyd 
nw b> mbwn sy n"yp wp wann or nysw wo207 199 poo IDaT> 
ons awa pod ‘na mbrpm caenns sy ow oxw7 mm xd d°>n yep 
pa mbina my) wom ow) wy) DwNX OAwY pr MmpINT Mnyod 
poms yb>> 5522 ow den perdy at ay mapa jo ,DNTy) Dnxn 
“7 poo Sy opp onx7> onD 

owt yp xbw pio by pyb yino xan nbon ow woD07 on 
by mas omy Ow wy ON °D 7A NAN Ws ys sina anndd 
sy aypor qo mnndS ySy xd mypoa Nan on .odnn mya) opp 
oy awy ow os °D Cominnna $b" od) *’Da _A’D) ANonnA ma 
yy IN 

nn mbapne ey ow oxen ap xb mbar mnypaw wos07 2) 
yap by DDN Dw) wom OWI MWY Ty OX °D ANN Aya pom 
$23 ‘0 TT Jy Map) YANp iam PMA) 

Ow) IN DWN pom ‘na moz07 No 'x ow Sy ayy wm So) 
ym nap> yrpd ayn ‘nn appar any mbnn ww mpi nrnyos 
J 71DT DD "nA pe any porw mw ws b> Sy 's prt sn 

ISDN NyAyA Nw Myawsa NVAyA PID NIT IWS IWS DD DI 
Ser o> ma paxm> say psy py ton bs oad oma yrs mw oy 
soxn> ond mini ore) orya nyainy nyqa ow .k17 37°23 Ip 
pon ox sq or by wen an oe .'2°DNdo) wn Sono wam 
1% am xd 7 yD on onpodna any) ovona ay io a xd wn 
Sy FDID IND NON TIN yn mM wR a"D PIM) 1D) AMI wr» 
oO noon yw wos07 42> .o’a ons oa od ow TwPERY MD 
pnd owan omans arm arto ?y) vy Soa qwR oYotDA 
OP) oA nyaya os Nw oMmyiawa ow nays owe anN 
‘= wap ns b> xd) omy osom xdw oada iw oxono ipew 
nym xd mappwa nraya my oxmp ya xd any eK 
Oomn AS ‘7 oy AWS OFT ONDA DS nN mo xd wR .nPtDia 
7 and ‘nn onsen Pa mw nD WM ADD by oxnpA Amd 


CHAPTER X 287 


Pa oprya aNywy pyn tx $53 nye opwnd: oyep7 apd 
bapa b> 1 nywm qoxm p> opps ae wwe mi pa poz way? 
sus 525 mwyd) oxoxd) a ns pind ononn oy MAN wn Py yo 
DIN NSP nono yon yo ory wedy? ken Pym nD 1'n Of) .ony 
bs oyminma ASIA Py Mpa AWS MYyA one Iaynm bw IN 
yon aw ay pyr ax boa sam yenpa sus mwyd poi Os sat 
so ovpaon mow~yn onos ay moan ov>$5n onsen 7 ayy 
xBINT Dw) Myo wpm 3y mbapr aKw nary py oxorxd: opin> 
AS RY TNT NY NI WN IN Dw? JNO NOITT OND NUT 
NOINT WD ANTON youw m5 mxdnos oD ond me yo aw 
Jaw Jy ony nd NAT NINA Pn 
MpINAT yD D"NN) Dw NYT wIND DL IMP TY yow x? oN 
INI7P IN) NIT NTA wT pry por ds ad yt Ty IN aw Ty 
.OD1NA wIpN ayn na 
WN WD TY FA“ DD >) aon) o'n uns NS TD Ty 
mw n> mm arto vy boa pr ws oYYADT anoesm .onwn 7D 
pow) insta yyya va 55> mapn meydy mat a? oF 
sex npn yy Py Soar .orby maw A Po) Aye JoxT Ds yr 
matin mupnn pnya> sna yyn mbap iarnm mya vos meson 
ppio ay »mozonn b> apd) -wxd wo207 ny, INT ona ws 
sno Soy xd oop ona aN? ots Sow TD 9N3 WW 7"32 oyap>r 
amronyp xd qn 
avd mos opnn $5 mwydy ayd: ims mame? wads ow own 
b> dyn edy mbdwn on ova arnynd on 55 wd awd wow "1 ns 
| Jos Ose wy 
sper an Say apts jyo> yp’p'n ‘7 nw yennn 1an23 
“na mosonn ibsa pina owinn nw ids 
NIN] NBT Vay) NTY 7022 NDT WOR 
y'an xpinn obwn 7’p22 ‘NYP pny 
mayin wna yp2a Ne? mb 
y’an a> ayy o’pa ‘yam yds o'n emp 
ovd$on onoom ND p’D mw n’ndr IVAN J"pD3 Tw 
OU “WS 
ANPIX p"p MW IW 'NINAI 179A T"NDA °"DN "NYP Tw 
maxin xpi bn'y obwa a"pD2 "mM ow 
"ONDD y"aD onw I"pID3 Symp” 
mdr onaN "D235 ‘NYP ony 
Tayin pny? 7A wi "p23 ‘NYP wn 
andr mw 723 NYP pow 


288 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


y"ap -xPD mwp q"po2 moby. 
T'3¥N ANY 7D NYP ona 
mnt onw "oD3 po 
maxin byw apa NYP pou 
mnbdr yinbs v2a Apr 
madr any 7’p92 NYP Synnw 
mp wow wonn °S31 nea 722 Mx DO} 
WYN JDI NTN wo ONT ONDA DD Myo 
masin Swit sp Yn mwD 
WIN] OFAN T’oD2 'RYP Sym 
Madr poua 722 ‘Now’ DAIS 
br DY "p23 jn) 
by omnasx yo22a x~p bmp 
om wxi .moy> aay v2 Sma wyw mw200 pnynn int 
WN Nad Myo. oN NN ay Ma Ms OAT opnyn y'n Rew 
mw yRo m'> wow qo wind oy omwya ix xvndia a"2 o7aDm 
orden wer As wad n’yp 
‘oNIpD mMndr Awe a"pDa on 
amd: Syert a'paa Rvp See 


TRANSLATION 


We, the undersigned, gathered here at ForlijonWednesday 
the thirteenth of Sivan, corresponding to the eighteenth of 
May, of the year 5178, to discuss the communal affairs of 
the Italian Jews. We then examined the ordinances which 
had been passed at Bologna in the month of Tebet, 
5176. The following is an extract of those ordinances: 

‘“Whereas critical times appear to be approaching, and 
the Jewish communities are in need of wise and learned men 
to lead them so as to prevent any catastrophe, therefore 
have we, the undersigned, selected general commissioners 
in the communities. of Rome, Padua, Ferrara, Bologna, 
and the districts of Romagna and Toscana whose duty it 
shall be to guard the interests of the communities during 
the coming ten years. If in their opinion necessity should 
arise for an assembly of their members they shall gather, 
and their council shall be empowered to levy such taxes 
on the communities as the situation will require. The 


CHAPTER X 289 


collection shall, however, follow the methods used in collect- 

ing the general tax. The moneys collected shall be placed 

with Benjamin b. Menahem of Corinaldo. The commis- 
sioners shall be authorized to disburse these collected 
funds as they will think necessary. 

If for some reasons any commissioner will find it impossible 
to attend the meeting, he shall appoint a representative to 
act in his place. This representative must be acceptable 
to the other members of the council, and when thus ac- 
cepted he shall be clothed in all the authority and power 
of his prinicpal. 

‘The following shall be the commissioners, 

For Rome, Menahem b. Meshullam, the physician, and 
Mordecai b. Joab. 

For Padua, Abraham b. Judah, the physician, and Isaac 
b. Moses Finci. 

For Ferrara, Elhanan b. Menahem of Porta Leona and 
Joseph Hezekiah b. Moses. 

For Bologna, Solomon b. Moses Finci, the physician, and 
Solomon Yedidiah b. Mattathias. 

For Romagna, Yekutiel b. Joab of Tivoli, and Elijah b. 
Judah, the physician. 

For Tuscana, Isaac b. Meshullam, the physician, who 
lives at Siena, and Yehiel b. Mattathias who 
lives at Pisa. 

“We have further decided that if the Commission shall 
find that it must incur certain expenditures, the Communi- 
ties of Rome and the vicinity shall not be obliged to con- 
tribute more than a fair proportion of the amount needed.” 
Thus far the said Ordinance. 

When we realized that there was need for the Commission 
to take action, we sent invitations to the above-mentioned 
commissioners to assemble here at Forli; some of them 
came in person and some are represented here by proxies. 
After a long discussion it has been decided that we ought 
at least to send to the Pope a committee to ask his protec- 
tion for ourselves and our people, and to beg of him to 
issue a new Privilegi, and to re-affirm the old rights which 
we enjoyed under former Popes. 


290 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


In order to cover the expenses involved in this matter 
and other necessary communal affairs, we have decided 
that the following taxes shall- be levied: 

A tax on the communities of one ducat and a half for 
every thousand ducats of property whether in houses, 
land or currency belonging to their members in accordance 
with the method of collecting the general taxes. 

A tax of a ducat and a half for each family from all 
those whose property is valued at five hundred ducats 
or more. Because this is not merely a matter of defending 
our property but our very lives, it were perhaps proper that 
it should be distributed equally on all the members of the 
community.’ We have therefore decided that everyone 
possessing five hundred ducats or less but more than one 
hundred shall pay besides his share in the above-men- 
tioned property tax (of one and a half ducats per thousand, 
which is collected from the communities) an additional 
ducat for the family tax. Whoever is possessed of less 
than one hundred ducats is urged to pay a ducat as family 
tax if possible, but in any case must contribute half a 
ducat to the fund. 

No one shall be exempt of the above tax except those 
who must be supported from charity. 

The collectors shall gather the funds and send them as 
soon as possible, either by special messenger or by notes 
of exchange or by transfer from one collector to the other, 
to Padua, to Yekutiel b. Emanuel Hai? of Toscanella; 
he shall use the funds in the manner ordered him by the 
commissioners at Padua. However, the funds collected 
at Rome and Campagna and Marignano, and such other 
places near them from which it is difficult to send money 
to Padua, shall be sent to the treasurer at Rome. He shall 
act in accordance with the instructions which we shall 
give him. 


* See Baba Batra 8b. } 

2 It seems likely that this was a name, like the Babylonian Hata 
and the modern Hayyim. It is here to accept the interpretation of 
Zunz that it is an abbreviation for mm mn “‘may be live” since in this 
case it is followed in the Hebrew by 9". 


CHAPTER X 291 


All the Communities and their officers shall unite to 
compel every Jew to pay his share of the tax in accordance 
with the regulations. They may make use for this purpose 
of any methods that they may deem proper. 

We have further decided to re-affirm all the ordinarices 
made at Bologna in Tebet, 5176, for the term of ten years, 
that is until the year 5186 (1416-26). We have further 
decided that all who have not paid their regular tax in 
the past years shall be compelled by the tax collectors 
to pay what is due from them. In the future years, too, 
the collectors of the regular tax shall collect it in full in its 
due time without respect or fear of person. All the com- 
munities shall help them to compel such as refuse to obey 
to make full payment. 

‘Every community shall have a local Commission who 
will look after the needs of that community, and such a 
commission shall have the authority to make ordinances 
and regulations for its community. 

Moreover no Jew living in a community in which there 
are groups of the members of the Romanescan (?) Order shall 
be permitted to allow within his house or in any place 
under his control any group of players, whether Jews or 
Christians; nor shall any Jew living in such communities 
or other cities or villages be permitted to play dice or 
cards or any other game. No one shall play for the benefit 
of another, nor permit another to play for his benefit. 
But one may play draughts or chess provided one does 
not wager more than four silver bolognini at any one game. 
On a fast day, * too, one may play cards, in order to forget 
the pain, provided one wagers no more than one quattrino 
at a game, for each person. 

Whoever will transgress this ordinance shall be denounced 
as a transgressor, and shall pay a fine of one ducat to the 
treasury of the city for every transgression. If he fail 
to pay the fine, the members of the community shall be 


* See Ordinance of the Rhine Communities, above page 228, 
section 12 (text R) where one is permitted to play at games of chance 
only during festival weeks. To permit play cards on fast-days in 
order to forget the pain of the fast sounds very strange. 


292 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


obliged to refuse to accept him for minyan, or call him to 
the Torah, or to perform Gelilah (the rolling of the scroll 
of the Torah). Anyone knowing of another Jew’s trans- 
gression of this ordinance shall be obliged to make public 
announcement of it; otherwise he shall be punished by 
the above-mentioned fine. 


In order that we may carry ourselves modesty and 
humbleness before the Lord, our God, and to avoid arous- 
ing the envy of the Gentiles, we decree that until the end of 
the above-mentioned term (ten years, 1416-1426) no Jew 
or Jewess shall be permitted to make a foderato-cinto,* 
unless it be black, and that the sleeves shall be open 
and that the sleeves shall have no silk lining whatever on 
them. Those who already possess such cloaks (foderato- 
cinto) of any color other than black, may continue to 
wear them, provided the sleeves are not open, and the 
cloaks are closed both in the front and back. 


Neither shall any man or woman wear any cloak of sabel 
or ermine or mixed fur or of red material of mixed color 
or of muslin or of violet color. However, a cloak lined 
with fur may be worn, if none of the fur is placed on the 
outer covering of the cloak. 


Women’s cloaks which have already been made with 
open sleeves and are lined with fur, may be worn within 
the house but not in public, unless the sleeves are sewn 
or the cloaks are worn under an overcoat, so that the cloak 
cannot be seen at all. Also the coats of women which are 
lined with fur, must so far as possible be so made so as 
not to show the fur. 


No man shall be permitted to wear a silk or velvet 
giubetta (cloak) except in such manner that is completely 
concealed. Neither shall women wear any silk or velvet 
dress except in such manner that it is completely con- 
cealed. Neither shall they wear any dress having fringes 


* For a further discussion of these clothes see Guedemann’s 
letter printed as an appendix to Halberstam’s edition of these Takkanot 
in the Graelz Festschrift. Compare also Guedemann III, p. 330ff. 
Compare Takkanot of Castile, chapter XIII, section 5. 


CHAPTER X 293 


attached to it other than at the opening of the neck or the 
sleeves. 

No woman shall wear any necklace on her neck or a 
gold hairnet on her head unless it be concealed except 
that newly-married brides may wear golden hair-nets un- 
concealed for thirty days after the wedding; after that time 
they must wear the veil over the net. No girdle which 
has a silver buckle more than six ounces in weight, or 
which is covered with velvet in any form, shall be worn 
by men in public. 

No more than one gold ring may be worn by a man, 
but the ring may be placed on any finger. Women shall 
under no circumstances wear more than two or three 
rings. 

Neither shall women wear a girdle or belt the silver of 
which weighs more than ten ounces. 

The fine for the transgression of any of these provisions 
regarding the use of clothes and ornaments shall be ten 
Bolognini of silver or their value for the treasury of the 
city for each offense. Men shall be held responsible for 
the infractions of these rules by their wives. If anyone 
will refuse to obey the ordinances, the community shall 
refuse to admit him to minyan or to read the Torah or to 
perform the Gelilah. 

We have also decreed that it shall be prohibited for 
more than three ladies and two maids to walk together in 
the streets except in the performance of some religious 
duty. Nor shall it be permitted for women to promenade 
through the streets and avenues except on festival days, 
when they shall be limited in the said manner. Men shall 
be held responsible for the observance of this section 
by their wives as in the case of the dresses. 

Neither shall men be permitted to walk in large groups 
or gather at the parting of the roads, or before the syna- 
gogues in groups of more than six, except in the perform- 
ance of areligious duty. The fine for the infraction of 
this section shall be set by the commissioners. 

From the end of this month of Sivan, 178, till the end 
of the year 186, no Jew shall be permitted to invite toa 


= 


294 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


banquet more than twenty men and ten women and five 
girls. This number shall include both the people of the 
city and those without, but shall not include relatives as 
close as. second cousins." 


If a bride arrives from another city on horse, she may be 
escorted by no more than ten Jews on horseback and four 
men on foot. If she come by boat she may.be escorted 
to the place of the wedding by no more than twelve Jews 
or Jewesses. 


At feasts of circumcision only ten Jews and five Jewesses 
may be invited in addition to the relatives. In this matter, 
too, relatives as near as second cousins shall not be counted 
toward the limited number. 


Any infraction of these provisions shall be punished by 
a fine of one ducat to the treasury of the city. 


In view of the inordinate spread of vice among the 
members of the communities,? it has been ordained that 
the local commissioners in each city and province shall 
reprove those who are guilty of immoral conduct. The 
commissioners shall have the power to inflict such punish- 
ent as they may deem fit, whether fine of excommunication. 
If the commissioners of any city refuse to interfere with 
any transgressors, the commissioners of the neighboring 
communities shall be in duty bound to take action against 
him. The General Commissioners shall assist the local 
commissioners in enforcing this ordinance. If the sinner 
refuse to repent, or deny his sin and claim that he has no 
cause for repentance, the circumstantial evidence against 
him shall be accepted as valid and he shall be removed 
from the community. If he remain recalcitrant he shall 
also be removed from the other communities. 


* For similar limitations on banquets see Takkanot of Castile 
below, loc. cit., and p. 228, Takkanot of the Rhine Communities, section 
17 and note. 

2 Compare Takkanot of Corfu, below chapter X, section 1, and 
Takkanah of Candia, Chapter IX, section 6, where young men are 
cautioned against intimacy with their betrothed; there is no reference 
in the Takkanot to the prevalence of vice in the manner mentioned in 
these ordinances. 


CHAPTER X 295 


The local commissioners in every city and province shall 
have authority to add other ordinances than these for 
their respective jurisdictions. A copy of these ordinances 
shall be made in each city and they shall be placed either 
in the synagogue or in the ark so that anyone may read ° 
them. 


Written and signed in the year 5176. 
Elijah b. Judah, the physician. 
Isaac b. Meshullam, the physician. 
Solomon Yedidiah b. Mattathias. 
Yekutiel b. Joab. 


Moses b. Abigdor, the representative of the community 
of Padua and the general commissioners who are there. 

Moses b. Benjamin, the representative of the community 
of Ancona. 

Menahem b. Meshullam, the physician. 

Yekutiel b. Menahem of Cavi. 

Menahem b. Abraham. 

Mattathias b. Isaac. 

Benjamin b. Moses. 

Solomon b. Moses Finci. 

Shabbetai b. Joab. 

Benjamin b. Menahem. 

Benjamin b. Samuel. 

Joseph b. Elhanan. 

Samuel b. Joab. 


We the representatives of the community of Forli have 
signed our names at the command of the General Com- 
missioners above signed; 

Moses Hai b. Daniel 
Yehiel b. Abraham 
Abraham b. Benjamin 
Nathan b. Joseph 
Yekutiel b. Abraham. 


B 


The following letter was sent by the synod of 1428 to 
the various communities of Italy, asking them to join in 


296 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


an effort to regain the support of Martin V. It has been 
printed by Margulies in Rivista Israelitica, xii. 8, p. 178. 


The letter is written in a very cryptic style which makes 
it almost untranslatable. Nevertheless an attempt has 
been made to give a rendering of its more important sen- 
tences. It is evident that the writers were very much 
afraid of the possibility that the letter might fall into 
Gentile hands. There is no mention made of the Pope 
have brougth the terrible news that was the immediate 
occasion of the letter, is not mentioned by name. 


TEXT 


mwyw and7 Dw 
n’pp nwa mxrnbpa 
syn owd mwyw> 
9985 owbwn 

"yy mbnpn 


moapo bso opin (pan yp b> crrvan Oxi noIy omg 

NYNIN WIND AIP OY NNT Twp AD TIN Ww wnt nyswe 
amwraa o>dy Som oi 55 ax nN nwa aaxp adem mynna 
nyna oy aydna mm .oonap nawen beandy axe oxyrd ndbdis 
may maison $n yom pm ano mw jipw> anon ays yr b> 
mmopon boo omen mxow> oat im mo unow >>> by 
nxvoa inser modo by axnaz i'n yp mda myna nya ww») 
Fonm>) ayna> Sawn mnrayoa wnay moa om mby> abnn 
yy mp 8x Nd py) rn are ~y'or dy bya wd mxawa aid 
om>y iSap) 1p) NVITDA OWIDOT WI Ww Mavnon mardn 
worm TDNbo.a oO wy inaw io) apy aD mepr mbrpaA ombw 
OwIN 7 Oya oaTnoT 55 ond Synbd wexim Darn wy 73D AWE 
xxrmbpa ap tynmd) aw adoyn nin m5n oD MADAM ~DyD ANN 
smo ami xd LON) °D AY wD XdI ToD Nd ANDI by ny JyDd 
> 7D Tpon ov «WS oIppa Axa mwyd yn owpann tu Toydr 
nyap anton >>> ay ovpynn wn aNw 55 mam mpm nomn ny 
wns wisy dy yyeam nvaon any wan oping 7bs won wm 
wa yyod sim nid my xem max NpIsa pen ind 4101 ANY) 
War NwaM wom wads Nk NN NX ONDA A on mw) 
1727 AYwnd AMar "nd 1ow d1D apy ma Sew nxn Sy pwn 


CHAPTER X 297 


Ty 82 DISDD MAL IN WD ’D powA wand ny pwr depen wen 
wPOT 37 ap? orvaNT WT TAN Nd COND 1D ANT POT oO nBw dy 
PAD 22> JONI WNT NWI TIM Mpo ny PR pt an mam anos any 
vand bw op? ~59 NoMM NdyA wmAD mA xT mE 
oy j221 oN¥oT no ASN yA ns ND) wa Na AM Np 
MOPS WNW ANTIADN? TIN MeAPA Mbap wpa d$sa wp 
UNIAA UIP yowN Wo NY oYow wT Mprwen om dp wx 
DONT NOD 2y avy 720 dx o>dsx yown wipz maw bx 

[2"2) 3") omy woe byw nan moswem mbyon ows 
DW FD CPI) Maper 222 mNTIaNd wa ces mdapn 
7278 NAP ay ANP) nyA 


TRANSLATION 

To the leaders of the community of Israel, in every place 
to which this letter shall come. Hitherto, the communities 
have often been saved from destruction and the menaces 
of our enemies were prevented from accomplishment, 
by the action of the synods who stood in the breach. Since 
the meetings of the Commission ceased new dangers have 
arisen. It was therefore decided to gather here at F lorence, 
because we know it as a fact, and not merely from rumors, 
that unless we hasten to take action in defense of our people 
against those who wish to destroy us, there is no hope 
left for Israel. We have made various provisions for 
meeting the crisis. We trust in the Lord, who has stood 
as our Protector since the days of the selection of the Fathers. 
But now, brethren, be merciful and see to it that Israel be 
saved. Provide us with the “arrows of persuasion” for 
this is no time to bind (funds) in hidden places, for since 
our ancestors went forth from Egypt they have not been 
at a worse sea of trial than this. For if the words of the 
accusers be accepted and signed, there will be no more 
hope. The prince of our generation who is to be trusted 
in every respect), realizing that the poison has reached 
even the very highest places, girded his loins and cried 
out revealing the secrets (of the Papal Court). Therefore 
Holy People, and particularly, Communities of Romagna, 
Lombardy and the other places to which this letter will 
come, turn to the cry of this letter and may the Merciful 
God listen to you. 


298 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Cc 


The following text is taken from a manuscript of "MN 7oNd 
ody in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary whence 
it has been printed in Cassuto, Gli Ebret a Firenze (1918). 
The section is quoted in a responsum, and is the only sec- 
tion of the decisions of the Conference of 1492, which has 
been preserved for us. 


TEXT 


ony dy ox pyow abxo ow YT ONWRIT DD TY UN ANID 
wyw NPM M207 MoD 12 ODD) ann pr Ap wa ww PAN 
mbrpa wr $5 ov rim ayn °D p'p> v'pp nwa N¥PIND Nya 
Abpn *>wa omy mainm ov omer inden medor 5) Saw 
Cam pre? owina °2 429 pax IAW INI AN ony Top aw? SAA 

by Sem qe ws rat $5 qwi rnd spor ondad mann unrna 
OS ano 139 wi Any) oat ToD by man pax po nN woT 4X 
NOY ‘NT DIN NAW OINM IITT AVL 3 ypand ws ordm 
ynan mipn 259 nxon by yep op ow on pa xibpi mbp xibp 
mbna mann omdby “pin 

bow woo07 ww? pwyo Sana yyod) ar by ann am ots b> y25 
mapna 477 ee xd) mara mw ww mbna an Sy mann pprw 
moon Soy xdi apyo Sua mann ayy wen mat a >" pny 
tab papa pyrpa pr mbm mond 

OPN) OPYYD JwNDA WM Aaya nN ood ayn nxp nrmdi 
nwa ITM WoT FATA woD07 12 Aw) 7wRd) mb> ox °> OrMDTDD 
Dy Awy] Mean Tuy ox md> yrawnd mbd mw n> maw nIDwD? 
np"pr 9 Awe mdm jor yaw mbon axa xd on) man npr 
main 

120 > moby pre mvp unin wea PI wea °D AYA 
dso mnswo mbwd uma ner yyod) (.n"D wn” 7a) ons oO) wn 
aT mp m7 xD MAI Jw won nprdr oynym Toy mbm mn 7a 
nm2DD ums o> o> moby wot omexn popm yar xb) won 
Seow pa ssow abyods romp; 2 ww Sey pown Sow ann 
Ay sw Jom od maa yes mbm aynm om "py CDN INN 
ory mptxd 

8> Sy sim on maya anda Sete op onan oxin mbwonn nyady 
GT” vo" sappy Swoon nn xd my wh dy C5 a'D OAD pwn 
np? yrad arnm sion anbaw wos07 wy) xeon aa yyad 


CHAPTER X 299 


poven °y byw main tabs oye. oyp b5 DY 'NPIT '2 npoxn 
TMyo> ADND 3" onyd ponnw 


TRANSLATION 


Whereas we are forbidden to receive any usury from our 
fellow-Jews and our Rabbis have as a hedge about the law 
made many additional prohibitions forbidding what is 
called the “dust’’* of usury, and whereas in our own times 
the number of those who disobey the law and lend one 
another large sums without observing the ways and methods 
which are provided for legal business transactions,? has 
increased and whereas they add sin to iniquity by nomi- 
nally including the usury in the loan; 

Therefore do we ordain that every person shall beware 
of such action. . 

In order that our hands may be clean from iniquity we 
have ordained that if any man include usury as nominally 
part of the loan he makes his neighbor, or if any person 
will lend money to his neighbor at usury, without observing 
the ordinances and methods laid down by the Sages, then 
the liability of the debtor for the usury shall be void, 
and the creditor shall be able to collect only the amount 
actually loaned. 

But whereas many of our generation are given to this 
sin, and they act in darkness, so that the sin is known only 
to the debtor and the creditor, therefore have we ordained 
as a hedge about the law, that any debtor shall have the 
power to compel the creditor to take an oath that the 
alleged loan does not consist in part of usury. If the 
creditor refuse to take the oath, the word of the debtor 
shall be accepted and he shall not be liable for the usury. 

And whereas it is the law of our Torah that a Gentile 
cannot act as an agent for a Jew, the custom has developed 
for one Jew to send pledges to another Jew through 


* See Shulhan Aruk Voreh Deah, 161. 

? The conditions under which a loan may be made at interest are 
referred to on page 234, section 1. See there note 1. See also Voreh 
Deah, 167. 


300 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


a Gentile, while the borrower stands by, and acts as though 
it were in fact a loan to the Gentile.t| But they have for- 
gotten that the principle of the inability of a Gentile to 
act as agent for a Jew does not apply to cases where it 
would make for leniency in ritual law. Therefore do 
we ordain that if in any case a pledge of the value of three 
florins or more given by a Jew is found in the hands of 
his fellow, even though it should have been given through 
the medium of a Gentile, the debtor shall pay the full 
amount of the usury, but it shall be given to the charity 
fund for the poor. And in view of the fact that the sin 
lies at the door of the debtor as well as of the creditor, 
since it is forbidden to pay usury just as it is forbidden 
to accept it,? and in order to punish the sinful one, we have 
ordained that the debtor in such case as that described 
above shall pay to the charity fund, two ducats for 
each transgression besides the interest on the debt which 
must be given to the poor. 


D 
TAKKANOT OF 1554 


The foilowing Takkanot were first printed in Jbrz Anokz, 
1879, numbers 29-30, by Isaac Baruch Ha-Levi. In no. 
31 of the magazine for that year, there appeared a letter 
from Halberstam giving some variants to the text of the 
Takkanot from a manuscript of his, and adding from the 
same manuscript, the text of an attack on the ordinances 
by one Moses Basula. At the same time Halberstam added 
some very scholarly information concerning the members 
of the synod. The whole text with the additions by 
Halberstam was reprinted as a separate pamphlet under 
the title Takkanot Hakamim. 

Another text of the Takkanot is to be found under the 


* See Baba Mezia 71b, and Tosafot ad loc. where it is stated defi- 
nitely to have been the view of R. Tam that the practice was permit- 
ted. But see the other authorities who differ with him Yoreh Deah 
169. 
2 Mishna Baba Mezia chapter V, end. 


CHAPTER X 301 


letter Tau in Samuel Lamperonti’s Pahad Yizhak. The 
part containing this letter, i.e., the last volume, appeared 
in 1887 (Berlin); the Takkanot being found on Pelooa, 


The text printed below is taken from a manuscript of the 
responsa collection 2m ‘anyn by R. Yehiel Traboto, now 
in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of 
America. The main text of the Takkanot is found on fol. 
383a seg. of the volume, but the first section is cited in the 
marginal notes of the famous scholar, Abraham Joseph 
Solomon Graciano, to section 178 of the book (fol. 350b). 


The variants from Graciano are marked &; those from 
Isaac Baruch Ha-Levi 3, and those from the Pahad Vizhaky. 


TEXT 


Pav 8" NITY NIN 8"D 17 OY OPT OT MN pnw Mupnn on bs 
OY NS TD20n2 OWT NPD °%bD ayNa MINT nD p’Dd Tw 
JOS M9S WTA DM WT Mwysa nYSw why 7” MwIpArmbap 


ovo ppt? Now 7Dp ow opt pian oda yoy xbw canes 
noson oy. oa7 awoye powo oan nwdw nosDAD nwa ON °D 
SDT 77 OX DIDI ope Sx Mmowon mertpA mbapa ans 2v84 
N° Tenpm wNID APDONT pon ws bya wya WP oN) mwp Tyr 
O27 Mov ADOT nDTpAa 4ow7 wm b> ODwo ODT IN OY 
S177 OT Nup? Bswn tos ow Soy xd ar nbin sen abapa ws 
Mom 129" sm "DT opm In b5> “po mem oMwy dpa 
DT Opes Aprxsn nap bm spo 


Oa on Sw mxoaya ran bse poym abn mss spaw oy C2 

Ths wpan 27 3a TET earn aw rey bw ana ow bap mor 

maoa> dap ow an ow yds yow xb. 95 mae edo" pan toynd 
saw orta ypoynd $x ypan os 


q77 Sy ides mop orta pop ainsd ons ow boy mbw (3 


JS oy 1 

bw 2 

{> pam a 

ov 52 “ppm nostpma own mm (eda by» mow wm Coen yo mbynd) 4 
DIIIAD ov 

‘amr pp .3 5 

ONY) .2 6 

haere 


302 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


ww OponA Maw orto prt odyan uw px7a py pyow jaw 
| wbwn 

ia. py>S ino ams aseboy xd onx 3913 TITw Opa (7 
pono? Nim aan IN Pym a7 psaa a xd ox min ow ainz> 
ws Sopa 2nnoeA 3 ww oper oOTY "DA IN ANID NAT PAT 7 
xO aan ow mwyd son yn "ay ans an boy xd Sapa ows 
man inven ay on $x Sapna 3ann psa pr mp dya xdo anos 
oy iS VyND aT oy OAT PTs wsd maw Ap yn xdbwa 
O7Py. ANP? qwso poy mind oan O25 

onan npma pwr wan mpn by o ay ow wxoW nym Cn 
INpINw TNT IA Tw NAT an ns 7D man byaw yor Sow pon) 
Tmt ypp xd ima 750 “Tw S"yRw oN oD D0D MIN D"y mwa 
mpn onn Sy aay ar by anym ntmy ADpes inpim pesin sa 
3ayo -Nann mana ANAT npn mypn 7373 4S nN unypn Syi 2" 
7 

Joy ONT wwsow poay -n Sy momDN OWN INSOW NVA (1 
xdy nans mews onp> Sorw aan aap op xd) ow wy ines oy 
bp) 28 12.19 7 TwRDY DANN OD DDD UMN D’y Yn Mapnd wi 
no2p72 pa nans mews nnp> Soy xd man aw nan? Rx’ xd oD 
‘ 4.m> WDD Papo INN NWS Px 

now any) nn avs wapd yp pyw on Sow am i207 Thy GT 
ow mend. sox) ax od w ox aon) wax mw da awya a 
wIpom ome) a mm sax n> prw> mds panp anya maps 
Som swam ny yinenw wn om perppn by o-pyon osym on 
Op) Aw 
mwa jna>soxp >") pny’ 1'pDa ND UN WT AMANI on) 
mAVLYN ny 

TO p"po mwa bt naw I"INDD3 ATT ON 

x72 p"p TWIN YY’ WNT Aw IP AMANA cM 

537 295 mspp b'xr wpm qa "oD x’Nd ya Sry Fra uw on 

bx bob pope ber beenry aanp> ped ja 7RT apy? ow 

bom bod mop a'ndr oxi Sxiwy "nD3 YS pay ON Dd 

NINTD 7D S"xt uxpo pny ’oD3 pndbs pysn 

mdr oxyp mbox a'poa yy oxrp bw yn 


{5 enna 

ND) .7 2 2 

25 a0 33 

WD OMY DI. wD 4 
.ON) .3 5 


CHAPTER X 303 


Maw AWD WDD ND pny 

m1 pp mw 91 ood IND T"DDa apy 

NPT) IPYNI P'’P WIND 'N AND pny ow 

mad? AMID OMI T"ND3 YX? pou Tyxn 

MON p"p wan Dipmp nody r’n22 dN yxn 

 UNANIAN 249DY JT N'ND Ja pnY Pyxn 

an npma oiAd sy py xd OTN OwY ON ODD0D UN TY 
~yToNTS ay can apn 2yad ww mpoa mora ondvd amw ba 
maim mn apn S53 iw °$a mana nnbad ofx ow Soy xdy 
58 quod AD ANID OFNN) NYNd IA TAINS ALY ONT DN 
ayia npn iv mpna o>>22 sya xo xendoay aon yp oA 
mom O wind way oan ba) $m oxina ond pry raya mana 
aw nora om>y san $35 mapna apn b> nx ovpd uino-nn ans 
6108 Sx $95) parnbn $95) qxand mde 

75"er nad xixp pny’ 7’nDa VND 

by onaw q’"no23 aT 

xy mbap awn y's sr Sxiow Pysa 

nyndia p'p mwID CUNT wD 

Sr wpin Fira "oD x'xd 12 ery qa 

xt mdr sbyiy Toda "x pny 

Do xantas 9>xw pT N’Nd ya pnye 

bret seary a"am2 PNT 12 1omYNT Ay 

WDD 77D pny 

NPT) 12"WN7 P"P (WIND 'N LID IpI3 YS’ pnyY 

maw p’p nwa 5” abd No T"pD3 apy 

NINTD TD uNDo S’xr pny’ J’ 22 jnbs -yyxn 

Mr AMIN ON T’DI3 "por Pyx7 

mon p"p wan >"? opp nobdw cana bx ysn 


Se Oo ee A Mg tae 

ya7aN FOr TT 2 .Syinw (Ave yo mdynd) 22 
9. 1B 1 acl 

amv. 3 

Pe 

orp) wow bom 2.2 

eS ie Te 

OMtiacd,. shee 

Sxa53a8 DY 2.2 

5 Ser Sony samo. pi ya 2.2 10 

andr. pow of2a 2 9 pio 723 yy a 11 
prrr 712 


Oo (0 SO OC nm Co oN, (= 


304 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES: 


TRANSLATION 


These ordinances have, been decreed by us on Thursday, 
the twenty-first of Tammuz, corresponding to the twenty- 
first of June, of the year 5314 (1554) here at Ferrara. 


1. Printers shall not be permitted to print any hitherto 
unpublished book except with permission of three duly 
ordained Rabbis, and the consent of the heads of one 
of the communities nearest the place of printing, if the 
city in which the book is printed is a small one. If it is 
a large city, the agreement of the heads of that Community 
shall suffice provided the consent of three ordained Rabbis 
is obtained as said above. The names of the Rabbis and 
the heads of the Communities sponsoring the book shall 
be printed at the beginning of the volume. Otherwise 
no one shall be permitted to buy the book under penalty 
of a fine of twenty-five scuttz. The fine shall be given to 
the charity fund of the city of the transgressor. * 


2. If any person compel his neighbor to defend a litigation 
before a secular court without the permission of his 
community or the rabbi of his city, he may not thereafter 
bring the matter. before the Jewish courts, and no Rabbi 
or Community shall issue a summons to compel the 
defendant to appear before them. ? 


3. No person shall render a decision in any litigation, even 
without referring specifically to the parties concerned, 
unless asked to give his decision by both parties or the 
judges chosen by them or an arbitrator. 3 


4. No Rabbi shall issue any order or decree to any inhabi- 
tant of a city which has another Rabbi unless the local 
Rabbi agrees or declares in the presence of witnesses or in 
writing his unwillingness to interfere in the litigation. 


t See Bruell, Jahrbuecher, 8, 60, note and Res. R. Meir of Padua, 
no. 40. Compare also above chapter VIII, section 12, p. 263. 

2 Compare the more severe ordinance of R. Tam, above Chapter 
IV Text A: and also the Takkanot of Candia, Chapter IX, section 4, 
where the right to take a litigation before Gentile Courts, seems to be 
recognized. 

3 Compare the Takkanah made by the synod convened under 
R. Hayyim Or Zarua, see part I, page 72. 


CHAPTER X 305 


In a city where there is a Rabbi appointed by the Com- 
munity or by the Heads of the Community, no other 
Rabbi even of the same city may issue any order. If any 
order is issued contrary to this ordinance it shall be void. 
If, however, one of the members of the community has a 
litigation against the Rabbi of the Community, other 
Rabbis may issue such decrees as they think proper in the 
case. 


5. In view of the fact that there are some who transgress 
the ordinance of R. Gershom against renting houses of 
Gentiles from which previous Jewish tenants have been 
expelled,* because they assume that after the original 
owner of the house has sold it to another, the prohibition 
‘no longer holds, therefore do we decree, that even though 
the original Gentile owner sells the house, the rights of 
the original Jewish tenant do not disappear, and that he 
who rents the house in’ such a case transgresses the herem 
of R. Gershom and our own herem. (The ordinance re- 
garding lending money at interest in places where another 
Jew has had sole rights, will be found below). 


6. Some persons have accepted the decision of the author- 
ity who permits a man whose wife has not given birth to 
both a son and a daughter within ten years after their 
marriage to marry a second wife without the consent 
of the first, in spite of the ordinance of R. Gershom against 
bigamy.?. We, therefore, ordain, that if there is ezther 
a son or a daughter born to a man, he may not marry a 
second wife except with the consent of the wife and one 
of her relatives. | 


7. We have further decreed that if anyone gives Kiddu- 
shin to (betroths) a woman without the presence of ten 
people’ unless it be with the consent of her father and 
mother if they are alive, or her two nearest relatives if 


™ See above Chapter V, the Takkanot of R. Tam, and compare 
Patol pe 31. 

2 See Part I, page 26b, and also Part II, chapter II, section 1. 

3 Compare below Chapter XIII, section 3, page 364. 


306 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


she has no father, both he and the witnesses to the marri- 
ages shall be excommunicated. 
(Addendum) We have further decreed that no one shall 
be permitted to lend any money at interest in where cities 
contracts have been made with another Jew giving him the 
sole right to lend money at interest. The Jew of Rome 
and Bologna are not included under this section of the or- 
dinance, since there is no contract made with the masters 
of those cities. 

' E 

The following text is taken from fol. 332a of the responsa 
collection bmi ‘any mentioned in connection with the pre- 
ceding text (above, p. 301). It appears to be a re-enact- 
ment in the year 1610 of the ordinances against compulsory 
Kiddushin. This is of course what is meant by forbidding 
the performance of Kiddushin except in the presence of 
ten Israelites of whom two must be relatives of the bride. 

Most interestingly it refers to ‘‘a general synod at Ferrara 
in the year 1555’’ where such an ordinance had been 
established through the influence of that scholar, “‘the 
Gaon, R. Judah Mintz.”’ Now we have seen from the pre- 
ceding text that the synod at Ferrara actually was held in 
the year 5314,1.e., 1554. R. Judah Mintz was very active — 
in connection with that synod, being the first signatory to 
the ordinance. The ordinance adopted at that time con- 
tains a provision against the performance of the Kiddushin 
except in the presence of ten people except with the per- 
mission of the bride’s parents or two relatives if she be an 
orphan. The re-enactment of 1610, indeed contains much 
more stringent rules. It requires the presence of ten 
Israelites, of whom two must be blood-relations of the bride. 
Furthermore it declares Kiddushin performed in violation 
of the ordinance null and void. 

It is therefore improbable that the word Yvwv is a mis- 
take for 7°%, and that the synod of 1554 is referred to. 
Yet that is not quite impossible since it was not unusual 
to change a Takkanah somewhat when it was re-enacted, 
Nevertheless it seems more likely that besides the synod 
of 1554, there was held another, again at Ferrara in 1555, 


CHAPTER X 307 


where the ordinances of the previous year were in part or 
in whole re-established. We may venture the hypothesis 
that the attack of Basula on the ordinances of the year 
1554 led to a re-convening of the conference. But the 
whole matter must remain indefinite until further manu- 
script material is made available. 


TEXT 


noboo own ws mod) ayyd mdyi mxroundn son yyod 
325 WN) ov nwa NANVD p’pa >> ayna x” mbapA nn ann 
TNT IMS INS AN "y 1DT nw ANY AWW I AND p"p 1 wy 
by innp> 02> -wEe oneRT OTD IN Ww OT pro aA A"In0 
OND) ONS apow) ymawna vn AS yoo. $"t x"awind bon 
beww 2a ws OW NT NY LSND) OAT wy N-yND OND UX 
Mwy °IH3) ANyTW NT D'S sox oui eds mya xd aes wipw 
oo yon 955a1 awa nanp awST Canps ow ono Oxi 
37) YD APSR Pw YIN’ WW Tay aN) 1372 pyr bo) OYA 
12 WIP’ WW PENT pypao wx woyor myo ar nd wpa oy or 
wp ON) OYPEW yr ywtpy TDA wapom Jy apN Kody 9199 
PSN PIX YD wwENN aM Mur nyya indya? jynwo mwas 
PDN YIN IN YAP NWT WET pasa WI) saw oD] ws 9D Sy) Taba 
“"y xO ON MDDY ANT 12 aT sO nsrairnon Sy aaym xin 95 
man oy owdsy mxax aww aya xDD by mawra anon TIwy 
pois ow ow? S"r amd nd denn nero unvnd oo xm jy0> 
1OX (7D 3D89D) OMAK by ora 3d) oa Sy mas ab awm ainz5 
pinp> ovxn ant po mwy opa bw na Sno0 nn Pow 
ONw ~Iy DID? OXM AST pps 7S" om ray 

.p'pd 'n'n'>'w YS AD 'm oY ~SDp mp 

9" 9D YY pow) AID) pet OT orn nnawoD oNNaw 7"DD3 ONIN} 

Seana pam nen? oD00) pow) woo Sapp nat spi Oxvow 
va 

oT ONT NPN O'D00) WIDD ANYMNTAD PY” TTS TpI3 7 

Ow nnd o2p01 TION py? ANd po TTyds JIN 72 OPN 
2 

sam $7 mpinnn oy 9" an? onoDDN (2) 2"IT yor NIT NDS 
m? DIDI NIN NYyo MwIA wIND AMS OD Dd oN 

"J x¥" SyIpUD DINdpP T"oDa YNiwW TNT OW) 

Ty) TNS IN pin pI as ory 9% Sm a" oN 7 
Sx ono nyt? us oO cnoson 5.2m jor pS Py? cna NIP? 


308 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


and wind ooren7 x oxo ards ana '2 orn os b 24 Ana 
p'pd obw yp "> ‘nm oY ora a’ pis ants nbyo mwa ox 
; Jwxveno bop Ap 


TRANSLATION. 


In order that this Takkanah may be in force both 
for the present time and for future generations we 
are renewing the decree which was established by the 
communities in the general synod at Ferrara in the vear 
5315 (1555), an ordinance which had previously been 
established by the community of Padua and the members 
of the academy (?) which is there situated in the year 5266 
(1406), through the efforts of the great scholar, R. Judah 
Mintz, and indeed was in earlier times ordained by such 
scholars as R. Solomon ibn Adret, in his responsum, no. 
1210, and by other codifiers. We are explaining and 
ordaining under the herem, niddut and shamia, that no 
Israelite shall give Kiddushin to any woman, whether a 
virgin or a divorcee, unless it be with her consent, and in 
the presence of ten Israelites, two of whom must be blood- 
relatives of the bride. The decree applies not only to the 
bridegroom, but to the witnesses and all those who take 
part in the performance of the ceremony. 

As to anyone who may transgress this ordinance, we now 
declare the gift which he used as Kiddushin public property 
and its use is forbidden to the one attempting to offer it as 
Kiddushin in such a-way that the Kiddushin shall not be 
valid. If the Kiddushin took the form of marital relations, 
we now declare those relations to have been out of wedlock. 

This decree shall apply to the district of Montferrat 
alone, and to such newcomers as may settle there per- 
manently or temporarily. 

Transgressors of his decree shall be released from the 
herem only after thirty days by consent of ten scholars who 
are acting as authorized rabbis living in three countries 


* See Responsa of Ibn Adret, ed. Bologna, 1539. 

2 This seems the most likely interpetation of the paragraph. It is 
hardly possible that the thirty days period refers to the rabbinate of 
the scholars. 


CHAPTER X 309 


(provinces?), in order that this decree may be made known, 
and that Elijah may be sent to us to bring peace into the 
world as it is written, ‘He shall bring back the heart of 
fathers to their children, and the heart of children to their 
fathers.’’"* Amen. 

(Whoever? removes this decree from the wall of the 
synagogue shall be fined ten gold scuti, half to be given to 
the Gentile poor as an act of mercy, and half to the Jewish 
poor). 


Here at Casale, Thursday, the end of the month 
, of Iyyar, 5370 A. M. (1610). 

Nathanel b. Shabbetai of the family of Dan, a 
judge agreeing to all the above. 

Samuel, called Zanvil, Petacrol, agreeing to the 
decree of the scholar, E. Nathanel. 

David b. Eliezer of Ravenna, agreeing to the 
decree of the foregoing scholars. 


It is true at that time I agreed to the above decree 
together with the other signatories, and now I again 
publicly announce it by permission of our lord, the Duke. 

David Samuel b. Kalonymos Petacrol. 

The words of the scholar, R. Zanvil, require no confirma- ’ 
tion but merely as a matter of form I wish to state that I 
aiso agreed with the opinions of the teachers just mentioned 
in regard to the decree. 

Hayyim b. Eliezer the Levite. 

The decree was announced anew by permission of our 
lord, the Duke, today, Thursday, the twenty-fourth of 
Sivan, of the year 5370 (1610), here at Casale, Montferrat. 


F 


The following is not the enactment of a synod, but 
it is a Takkanah made in several communities by corres- 
pondence. It is found in a manuscript of the Jewish 


t Malachi 3.24. 
2 This seems to be an additional note added to the copy of the 
decree that was placed on the wall of the synagogue. 


310 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Theological Seminary on a folio leaf bound up with other 
Italian Hebrew documents. It was first established by 
the community of Cremona, and then accepted by that 
of Venice, and finally by that ,of Rome. Apparently 
it was then sent to all the smaller communities for confir- 
mation. Somewhat similarly, we notice the confirmation 
of the Takkanah of 1418 by the representatives of the 
community of Forli (see above p. 288). Since we have 
the original text of the Takkanah we can also notice the 
manner of promulgation which was the announcement at 
the Sabbath services. This method was also used in 
Castile (see p. 372) and in Morocco (Kerem Hemer I1.15). 
It was in all likelihood the method in common use in the 
other countries although there is no evidence available 
in regard to them. 


TEXT 
a 


nat bs on ‘7435 Wow 
YODA TYOWY TIS ODIs wn 
OPn nnn nypiw 

DIV5) nN) 1yDw 


ov aon aNd npina > xb miswo nwad ox anon 15 ora 

oid aa yaw ma yoy ws one  npim diay rend nm npima 
OID. WPY PAX NIN MYXONA DPwyD JwNNA OW Oxy DP DYN 
ona mpinz qary °> ay modab prawest ay apm7 Sya sna sian 
wp Xd ONNN oYwI NID) OMyN MAD OWI Ar pI. Op TS 
> oyr amy diay pws WAN NAME NpoDT intindy Adbynd ywrar wdr 
NOP] NDPD aw) Mowdyp ADD) Iw) PT ADD Mw MNoOwYT 737 
xd) indw 7aD RT oywin dex .ariat by papa ry ws NDP 
TN OUR NIpd MDI yow opwyr nyo dip °> yy D5 od in-w 
3p OWIN Any) woD DON oD7a OAT Mpa *>ya nyD w>DA> 
sex ony) opdby ono cds amp ibm yan yer w> 
Soy xdo wa cones Sy) omwmd) myox wer $$nz map 
yyw ppdan yopdr Sy mynbo rawd joa woo pin Tp »y S¥md 
sy awn bau xdw ayn ypr mes wr 55 Sy w'm nana ums on 
OTP 739 7wSs oD paN7 Sw n’xo mya mbnd apn ow ywad yr 
Syp mm ty on) mow nndad aay qwe 8 Ink ay wR 13 pnd 


CHAPTER X 311 


nana wns oan $x apm ow mwr pwya myo ww mdiyD IPS mw 
soo aim xd obs mn ow xo mena ma xd pone xbw w'n 
TNO JNA Ayton cian ya od yaw ots ow xd. nd owas Ndr pwr 
wy ond yxy Joon pt oma opoa Ssaw opt ocwd rp sy md 
yo yesoops mrp cdg on Sane ortop by ombdy nov awe S22 
sa> nxronand ad mw xd) 0S am obw aoxd 1ada Joan wr 
TON ‘now 1217212 WIN NT apy wn wn ws pron way 
aos Sy AOI AINA Appa AansA Abbopa 5D 1a Axan mnowaw 
mo Syne na ja 12 5y om amin Soa) AINA NANA ws OTN 
apin7a on Ins ow ay nny ondbad den ayer owe dm Syn 
699 nping ond Ins ows mpd xdw mond xdw nowd xden 57 
ONION Ow O7D TNS ow oy mwyds xdw Anxpoa sbi Abia xd S79 
sed goes yn ty mun wy Savmd eden Sx 55m mpinna odhyaw 
nyt Syy sim a oper nyt Sy nsrarn-m iw nox yarns tna 
MOD IS MOA ow rps m7 qand Syy sow pra ds won 55 
Np 7a72 Ny Ww ON [PN ON TY NNT un yD APY x> yan mwyM 
Saw ort op Sy pn 1S obwar npn by apinn bya awa aban 
mymiad cosa bene cnon ow ow nado am mds by AD 
op) yp Sse ba) max Pom my we °DD onD Fawn Sapbr 
sos Sea ma msn mnow yaw 141 5 
xbw oxina p’pd anw nanan yy bp> 'D Tor KN p AD Mpn 
ay mobon su am 
ber yen own 7a yopoyr Andon pny” on: 
2a >t AN TD 7 ‘pm On 
yudia 5" oma 7"D3 ODN OND 
1797 BND ony OFS ON 
bm 526 mp Non }ND OM Aw 
p’pnn nyo ¢na mindbwa cnao7» $x opbsea navn oD Nm ns 
NOP pp wow 3! aA'ndsr apy’ 7a NTN ON TNO Tp 
boa ambyn oy sw spy bx oben oon mbys in mp 
oo aynA Appin) an 
e> apn nav 'D (wer oY aN 
jna>wixp NTP ON 
ber ian moby omnax D3 apy 
SxTPPy WII 
M20) ALY nyo ona boa bx ANA ADD Tnw xm NM 
pT) 7D ‘TINT ‘yo we On WOT a by myD Onn TD by A> 
wow 3"sT NN "DD DATSN OND TIT OPH. wT AYN mn DDwA 
.p'pd a’pw Nay 7"D "TJ OY OVA OMIM AMF ANY?) P'p 


312 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


inn T3D5) oa own noayd sx xd) oxsy mds nx ms on 
pbs maa aed py mbv> wpan a ox Ox TN AwIpA 
opibaa mbyn oy oso2 $x AAA orpar ani ond b22 uw 195 
nam pwn ms opmon 

a> mobon a am xbw yow an 

pp nawe Ser Syed ama a/m23 PNY’ NAM HT SVyT 
| "DUT TINY? P'S NOT 

Ne NOT p’po nyo cna boa bx ANA moDTPnw XT Ons 
nbyoo ws’y nen oy Sapan mown > Sy mbenn nywa naw ova 
amd 4x7 

bon Sy»adn pny’ p'pd a"pw Ny 'D 
nypia °na $53 No AD NIT TNT TDTDNw TION) Py UN DI 
~yxn ow? 5 27 p’y ova 
ea) bm ba eh eT Lm 

DD ]NYNID Oywi nwo. MND ON 737 NT ANS NINA 
on npn) waa ww ws $9 nynd ovam n?dyo7 ann> am 
odwa s> impo by ws 55 pr payw wa xb 


TRANSLATION 


In view of the fact that many interfere the vested rights 
of their neighbors to have sole privilege of lending money 
at interest in certain localities, and very often the agency 
of the non-Jewish nobility is employed to compel the owner 
of the privileges to surrender them, and those who have 
the law on their side find themselves driven from their 
positions and the wicked displacing them and no one looks 
to God or to his Torah, which forbids such practices, in 
spite of the fact that many of our predecessors have 
protested against the unfairness of the practice, and whereas 
the cry of the oppressed of various places, especially among 
the owners of these exclusive rights of money lending, has 
reached us, and whereas it is to be feared that the protest 
of the local Rabbis against the unfairness and the injustice 
will be without avail, and they may even be cast into 
prison, therefore have we decided: 

That no Jew or Jewess shall interfere with the exclusive 
rights of moneylending that is at present possessed by any 
other Jew; 


CHAPTER X 313 


That if anyone has already made an attempt to secure 
for himself the rights that in fact belong to a fellow-Jew, 
he shall be forbidden to make use of the transfer of the rights 
nor shall any heir of his or anyone who rights are derived 
from such an unjust person make use of them, until the 
matter is decided by a Jewish court; 

That if anyone shall violate these ordinances he shall 
be excommunicated, and no one shall trade with him, either 
taking part in the rights enjoyed by him or hiring it in 
whole or in part nor make any contract with him regarding 
the Hazakah, or have any dealings with him at all, even 
so far.as to sit in his company; 

This ordinance of ours shall not be set aside until the 
guilty one sees that the rightful owner of the exclusive 
rights is re-instated in them, and is compensated for his 
loss. Moreover the transgressor shall present himself 
before two ordained Rabbis to receive such penance as 
they may direct him to undertake. 

Ordained here at Cremona, on Wednesday, the fourth 
of Kislev, the fifteenth of November, of the year 5342 
(1582), on condition that the ordinance is not opposed to 
the government. 


Isaac, called Zelkimann b. Gershom 
Aaron David b. Aaron Noirlingen 
Ephraim b. Menahem Noirlingen 
Abraham Menahem Port Ha-Kohen 
Moses Menahem Kohen. 


The ordinance of the above-mentioned leaders, has been 
announced by men in the three synagogues of Cremona. 

The decree of the Sages of Cremona is proper and we* 
second their decisions. 


Venice, twentieth of Tebet, 5342. 
Judah Katzenellenbogen 
Jacob b. Abraham Solomon Ha-Kohen 
Abigdor Cividal 


The ordinance was announced in all the synagogues of 
Venice by the undersigned, according to the command 


314 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


of his highness Gambur, and a copy of it was placed on 
the gate of the Ghetto in the usual place, Abraham b. 
Uri, the Shamash of the Community of Venice, who has 
written and signed this on Wednesday the twenty-fifth 
of Tebet, 5342. 


I, too, agree with all that has been written above. 
Isaac b. Judah, minister to the Community of 
Rome. 


The above ordinance was announced in all the synagogues 
at Rome on Sabbath during the prayers, by the agent 
of the community with the permission of the Court, as 


usual. Isaac of Lifatil. 
I also testify that it was announced at the Community of 
Rome. Ben Zion of Norzi. 


G 

The following Takkanah of the Community of Pesaro is 
taken from the marginal notes of R. Abraham Joseph 
Solomon Graciano to a Ms. of the responsa mi ‘anya 
in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of 
America, (concerning which see p. 301). It is of interest 
as bringing further evidence of the leniency with which 
the Rabbis of Italy saw Jewish litigations taken be- 
fore Gentile courts, and because it deals with an aspect 
of the matter not touched upon in the other ordinances. 
Although it is only a local Takkanah, its intrinsic interest 
seems to justify its inclusion here. 


bs Sop, Oy bh 

$9 mxa ms $727 Nob OI277 NODA pnym oDw 47> XM 

WI OWN PIV D> NOD AD Ma yw ays Sxnw maa $n mbps 
ond 's Sy aya ovewr idy on owe ondby msxstya vewon bs 
popn yaa mya bw pen onbw yawon oipna wan q>> wand yawnn 
Jay ms yw xd omy 25m) wan ns 12 yawnd wipn mDppD INN ws 
wT ona myiwam oma Sm ome aN pbena ws Apa 
ow ow xxon ona idrori jydpm 9D ow by? qriw yor dso omrys 
O’N27 ND’ AD Iw MeIpA mbapA *nqw ume 79> yn Sonn 
"x mMeapA mbapr nosona THynn wp > Wd TD oinnz by 
Msxdaya man ox yawad Sanwa pany ow Soy xdw win OA 


CHAPTER X 315 


“7pm 8? oN) ovBwDD DI>Ipn Sy uyraw pr myo bw vena andy 
yawn ana win ans p> am Sys war owobdipa by ayeawnd anys 
mb>npa $5 by pnd aa ar csan myo bw yan wpm wwa yawn 
no2b7 Py Tay IND WA Wt mMpN Dy AaymM ND’D TD WS MwA 
aM sw S¥ar YI AUN TP TAT AS SPM ny Rein Sapa 
op) raw Som ppd tw wou ‘NIT AN YD IND’D-AD onnn ano) 
PT ws OI Mpnm mo IoD oan Mbyn ow yap xd 
2% mD20NT pny7a ompw uxxo xd jy ma ony 


e 


TRANSLATION 


We have noticed a disgraceful procedure that is common 
here at Pesaro, namely that when two Jews have a liti- 
gation they proceed to take their case before the secular 
courts and if one is required to take an oath, an object of 
religious ceremonial, like the Tephilin, or one of the books 
of Scripture is brought to the Court so that the oath may 
be taken over it. Since the Gentiles do not realize the 
holiness which is attached to the Tephilin, they look upon 
them with contempt, and consider the straps of the Te- 
philin as of no more account than shoe-laces, and thus the 
Name is profaned. Therefore have we, the Ministers of 
the holy Communities, here at Pesaro, ordained, with the 
consent of all the Communities, that no Jew shall be per- 
mitted to take any article of religious ceremonial to a 
secular court for the purpose of administering an oath, 
but the oath:shall be taken over the pen. If the litigant 
is not satisfied with such an oath, the parties shall come 
before a Jewish judge for the administration of the oath. 
Whoever transgresses this ordinance shall be considered 
as having transgressed a communal ordinanee, and shall 
be punished. 

Written and signed, here at Pesaro, the twenty-sixth of 
Ab, which is the third of August of the year 5344 (1484). 


CHAPTER XI 


TAKKANOT OF CORFU 


The following Takkanot are taken fron the fly-leaves 
of a manuscript of a Mahzor Corfu in the library of the 
Jewish Theological Seminary of America. In spite of the 
many lacunae, it is not difficult to gain a clear idea of the 
twelve provisions of the original ordinance. 


DTP °° TWN “IND WON] MON TPP) NON. eccsececsceeseeeeees 
IND] AS Oy Tan xd Fwonw Tw TN AIDA WDD... S 
wa xdw o> qawon mad Jon xb nomwon jo camad) o> xden 
Ca to poi vb mort yor My am yO pra DP Wor... eee pts 
po od ar oy xno oospm mdvan yox) onda yom won 
oy 47> pri Asp) yyr2 TD) (2) NP AXID) Mw AD. wra or 
om>ds orya wwe ows ca wwd am rans mann indbdp paw 
SOE Madi. yy pay menp mbapm cw noo ume yd) om 
DD OTD Mwyd) mid OKA] PYF FIND NYAD...ccecccececececeees 
GO") yw) my mye said mat x"y p’pnd onpm on 
Sma bY. -INDw YI Apy’ TID INI 1D PY MY JID Pwd OT 
Ny Toyo NMND DD PMD) WAID MDDDAT No Awd Sy ow mw 
a|-dg yu hizda bie ta pBOthe. “7p pene rece ar Dn TDyNA pip aN yma) x"? 
onan sap> unby (oy aan oun oy ude p’p nD 1x 
map nyma ‘a od15 125d nord) yownb 4D ans ppm onam 
ONT WY AD ISD INN p"PT VAN WSINA TDD NIW nese INT 
DS WYOWD (AWW? PPYA WPT WH SD NON cess nym> ons paw 
pro) spd ss mbndy jdoab dy awe ‘a PD THynn wop aM aI 
mosonn *>w nnn oinnd ainad iw»n ond Spanady ap ways 
Tipy TD nen mopA moDDAT dy Syt arpa 1D Wp... eae 
TOA PpPMPT Wow) xn Soa wa Pw o”p.......mwI MD md 
pond ‘nt nm ay on wa 737 $5 ap) Aa by ww Od PNY 

DINT NOVA ADDO DID WD... ve! ONIN 


nomwen xd) notwo mad n2b5 sw ow away adi Soy xd 
pRwin onp oo win eds yor gwar ops awa nbw qnwon mad 


CHAPTER XI 317 


sy o7a> nonwom Jwen mine xd win omsay osnn ye 

mower maa yo "ay ws osTwer mwyd orn prwin ans 

oo wind men am ond ow mw op......... [7d] Ddn7 nwyn onp 

ON) OT OTDM OD [T)......... nad) oxxd ‘nn noon oon orn 

xd [JT wo DIDw ANS prem ny ym ow win mss cba 

naywo yor pasmd coins ya das priwid soi nnd aby 

bina p Averitt le RET ee noTweM FJTweA No ‘aA waInn 

TM xd wom wmEN2 ow win Ssqw man sven pond) dwn 

“YT NDIIN wen PD xdy oD AbD apo INN ney (53 

DISA MII Ayawd soo Nds pwrtp nnd om ow mway Nd 'a Nan 
21705 op sbi am pr cam pony 

3277 nvma pow aww ains> wwon nyw mp xd cdowa onw ‘2 opan 
(DIDS ND72 rw wIp) aN AD wap> AXIM IMs yin 
DPr OW DD) OFT OND PW ODT DAL... eceseseeeee 
po ewan ans adom nntA Parp wa oODw> 
WIN MND. on APDND TTD con wba mpind p> 
ows ax porppm cans on Syd nm. nnn wm 
mr n> mboa (oy onba yn oxxd) poys qotd 
"oa won mwyd inva ons 

Twx wap x"y mrordapos pr ow sox sown cde ony T opan 
pay pyppw VP On perppm ypw>yo nyo oy wa 
MOP moIDAT ANT wR. woo 1a ps 1p duran ppraw 
DONT CON AN ON [TT 72 NyppAa wn) and mr by 
moa coyts>n obws ya osym nenpom eipom 
TT UNDIT 

2F5 mya) eA EE a molp7T osin Wm 's ow by mayw ow do 
3292 3", 7m nyaady ows orm dshte nay Sapp 
Orxm AP wror wood orxn [OUNI PITT DIp2 
pid x"y? arp PM... meay xd on vbw yma 
cam sand nyad ax ore cp mesa vborb: maby 
sobn pam mm ar b> oyw ans Sap oy nyvad axn 
279 wap) Stay npIDT M23 MNpIT ANON DPA 

Toyo) my x" 2 NANI NT ON IND Nk JWT ANT wD07 .’7 ONIN 
ANSI WT} wwa IND AwyY pNNa no ND fox yoXwwW 
SL IaTO? TTSIND DVO e. toseseceovdecs weet Wo om xbw op 
: roxn aba 

Tn xdv TD MxM OTP YP wIP Naw anya yw prem . ox 
| stnay) yon opd oean 

qway xbw nyo) mrma2 owb-ax nix nye nnd wpm .'roxan 


318 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Teys nnn yrenad oma nnn ymos> wbe............ indba 
Ua ccilicn peers “wa aN? xd 7D on 
OPV TDG pean metetad OV AQI aT TV lal erastesestecteoyeeterees 
199 35 mindy mod Mid WND2....cccsescsseeeees mio2> DM 
EE RON Oe kM cleats b> Sy Sm ayn mm OTN 
Sycw na nyad inad asa jo) ars ana aa inwrd 
ow jreiadar waa mms xox x72 Nps x>1 myx 
SoPwyos mwyn xb 

nnap oy yt way dy Sun mbin bow Apa mDDDIAA 'n CNN] 
PRO MVD PRU LTTIN] ..eseseeeeees ova MDD wen oy nan 
3WL") 'NW OD) OPT ANY pbIDD 737 PR) nvr ava pubw 
Rae NC Wapmw mua mm ar oy) and ni Now orn 
s7wn7 wxoD dr ANSAN ynxon 45d Sy 15 Sinn 1S 
soyonn $55 xpi p> ny $55) nbn 

ae syw wbnd mw ws owd npmondad anipa most am £'B NIM 
nv ntin mp ovp> n'a no wow xd owsd......... 
abe a eee Caper 82) TTann NS oomds ‘nd ons O22 
byw a $255 ww anse on ‘ad ans wp oy > md 
Tapeh inka aan een sescsveereeeee BDI DIN 

TP now Paw yA nnn by myo ninpo mes ow > mw... 1 NI] 
OVD ND DIND TE OWA MYDS... eee syd 45 452 18 
Syms iwn-ind amo tat nym ya dy p'y 

odo o>oosn ommny maa yom 737 om oy Soa C8” ONIN 
370 meyy>d wen yD Sen nts os Sy mye pmad 
i ee sop’ *>sa ony OTN) O'TDR OYA Tw aw PPM 
sotia &os main Now sen mex oy ma 8k O22 YIN 
7a axe nppinm 7d Ton on soy mad ADUDTAwWD NIT. 
RY INF tel donee yop oa mo yw XS on bax OMIT 
Tw ND Md Ns O22 75 Nw) TNT TWN oN 1D) N_DINN 
ya aDy Nd) oo mT? SD ord nnd... 21ND 7 
onoinn iompnmy > arb. 5 nD mw Rent wber 
somSy ‘7 nbona ‘On WwR Ty OFAN °DDI ODN NYITW 

pa nvosa nwyn> boyy yoo mans wen S59 pod ot> .3” (xan) 
sayd nvan any ww "2 7905 waned anys Sow nvna 
sD107 wp) dya woyn anyp 105 x"y’ anon 1b Daw "RX 
snoo7 oxpa Swow tab min natn meydo snw sap 
yw'n) pipa 3°. 79> Ay raw) 

ERE ane BM cles MD107 INA Myiaws ana) MxNA wna AwWA..... 
sobiyd yan so xb mon nNm mDIDNn 


CHAPTER XI 319 


b> Sy Sunn arn mem nem nosonn bw ostn opi aon b> 

snyvd) omeswd on orn op wp) boar ao S22 sow> ar nbapo am 
syon avon orn Sard mw 1d un ...oue am Sm b> no pin 
AGREES tle rele AS AE rp 's ow tm anon b> naa tad 4D 


seve PY OT TODDAD OWN ONIN TW 's ow by anyA 
jov|n) Ay AITwA ow ASM Sx b5 wedi orpdr pind wt1.... eee 
PDA OI Tay eee NDI sactisieeefeaites). ow 

on oa YT ws OnooT OAT Sst 22 mow ads 
moo mapys Sxvow 9 mUNPS On 4" paw jp 
md Dp oO’ HD OAS 7" paw pm 
: OPT Naw "nT paw pm 
Symp dyer on pai ip 
rot weds 'N paw pm 
PN DAIS I" pawn 
*byp pny 4"n pam 
" OFTIN WMD....(2) PIT OMowa "T'n’n mw "and x” py ora 
ee octet he 1y 
a7 wp> wy monn y’y oaaen ova > x"y1 >on p'p 
ADIN JOT “PANT? MID TP ONY ADINW ‘8 ONINA 2 pba m2oNn 
STUDD VDD ween WIND D1 

onda T7pd APN YIN? OXw NWS ‘8 NINA Nowa mDDoMAw Iw 
RY? WIN Naywo Aw yor pasa? maw wm .......92~ gd1 nw 
B=) itn 2) => = bb An =n [notw) on mad ny ois xb JT won 
Das wa.) WIT Nyw TPS TR? OMINM DDIND OAT 
noqyn nya ow nynd Soyw > apind wo107 ap oD "nN ary n'n 
yrP) 73°) os 737 ya’ Oo "nt bsa on apind oyndAT O37 


nos awon nyw my 1b ape > mNWNIDD Wd... DN 
mono) mony ow Sa ar ba.0> ao yd... oNp oD 2 
! Bee Sect ees, eats 2) tn Dip 
Bihan ahah mera eal oda phone pa reopen rere eh De pueda Pan ey 
- TRANSLATION 


Fe eto they made a perfect and upright ordinance that 
no affianced man should foregather with his fiancée nor 
go to her house, so that they may come to no temptation. 
This is in accordance with the view of our Sages of blessed 


320 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


memory, who said, ‘‘Shun evil and what is like to it’’.? 
In the course of an indefinite time this ordinance has fallen 
into disuse. As a result every day there occur cases of 
indiscretion giving cause for untold shame and disgrace. 
No day passes without its curse being worse than that of 
the preceding. This is all the worse in a generation such 
as this, whose people are not fit....in the eyes of God 
and men. ‘Therefore have we, the officers of the two com- 
munities of Corfu, assembled to look into the matter and 
to make regulations an ordinances for the Community, 
in accordance with the words of the Prophet, ‘Take up 
the stumbling-block out of the way of My people’. ? 
Therefore have instructions been given to Jacob Miuni 
that he should write “with an iron pen and lead’ on 
parchment the text of the ordinance in accordance with 
that he should write “with an iron pen and lead”’ 3 marked 
on parchment the text of the ordinance in accordance with 
the intention of the said Committee. When the time for 
the gathering of the Ma‘amad came so that they might 
hear all that had been written we, the officers of the Ital- 
ian Congregation, with the chosen leaders (of............ 
Congregation) sent to call the officers and chosen men 
of the other Congregation in order to announce and de- 
clare before them all the terms of our ordinance for we 
have seen that it is time for the Lord to gather glory in 
our country. But the leaders of that other Congregation 
deciared that they could not agree to be at one with us 
but each one should be free to do as he please. When we 
heard this, we ‘‘arose and stood upright’’4 “‘according to 
the good hand of the Lord over us’’5 and decided to go to 
our most illustrious governors® to prostrate ourselves be- 
fore them, that we mighc persuade them to write and sign 

* Hullin 44b. 

2 Isaiah 57.14. 

3 Job19.24, 

4 Ps. 20.9 

5 Neh. 2.8. 

6 In 1389 Corfu placed itself under the protection of Venice which 


in 1401 acquired formal sovereignty to the island. The ruler referred 
to is therefore the Venetian governor. 


CHAPTER XI 321 


a decree beneath the ordinance in order to establish the 
ancient ordinance which is here renewed so that it may have 
authority. After the announcement of the o:dinance 
and the declaration of the herem no affianced man shall 
be permitced to enter the house of his fiancée, nor shall 
an affianced woman enier the house of her fiancé, in any 
place or at any time, except one month before the wedding. 
During that month the betrothed couple must not be 
together in private until after the wedding. Those who 
were engaged and have entered the house of their betrothed 
before the passage of the ordinance shall have the privilege 
of coming and going into the house of their betrothed for 
one month from the day of the promulgation of this ordi- 
nance, under the rules and regulations mentioned. If they 
cannot arrange for the wedding within that month but 
are compelled to postpone the time of their marriage, then 
when the month passes the betrothed pair shall separate 
oR ea In order to take up the stumbling block and to 
remove all suspicion from the daughters of Israel, we have 
decided that even during that month they shall not be 
in private without the guardianship of one of the relatives 
of the bride so that there may be no suspicion of impro- 
priety.’ ® 

Regulation 2. No person shall be permitted to perform the 
Kiddushin except at the same time as the recital of the 
Seven Benedictions, so that the Erusin? and the Huppah 
may be together. 

Regulation 3. If the time is not opportune for writing a 
document, of betrothal......... and the groom wish to 
perform the Kiddushin, he may perform it in the following 
manner: that the benediction of Erusin........ shall be 


t Part of the missing text of this section is quoted in the note 
below but I have not been able on that basis to reconstruct all that 
is lacking. 

2 Erusin is the ceremony by which a man becomes the husband 
of a woman to the extent that she may not marry another. He may 
not have marital relations with her until the Huppah has been performed 
and the wedding benedictions recited. Already in the mishna it 
was noticed that very often these prohibitions would be transgressed. 
Especially were the betrothed lax in this regard in Judaea (Ketubot 1.5). 


322 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN: THE MIDDLE AGES 


recited in the presence of the Rabbi of the time, and in 
the presence of two elders and in the presence of....... (2), 
and within one month thereafter he shall perform the 
Huppah.* Otherwise he shall part from his betrothed. In 
that month, too, he shall be under the restrictions apply- 
ing in cases arising under the first regulation. If after 
the Kiddushin he desires to go on a journey without his 
betrothed, he may have the privilege of the said month on 
his return. 

Regulation 4. If by any chance any member of our Com- 
munity will say at any time that he performed the Kiddushin 
with any woman in the presence of only two witnesses,’ 
those Kiddushin are now declared null and void, in accor- 
dance with the ordinance that was previously in force 
in regard to this matter. The power of those who ordained 
the previous ordinance and our authority is as strong as 
the Court of R. Ammi and R. Assi} to declare kiddushin 
null. He who performed the Kiddushin, and the bride 
who accepted them, and the witness shall be fined one 
hundred ducats,. 


t That is if for some reason or another it is not possible to draw 
up a contract of betrothal between tne couple, the Kiddushin may be 
performed so that the husband will be bound legally. Talmudic law 
requires for the Kiddushin merely the presence of two witnesses; 
the Takkanah requires the presence of at least the Rabbi and two elders. 
The Huppah may be delayed a single month. If the bridegroom leaves 
the city, he may delay the Huppah fora month after her return. See 
also Res. R. Isaac b. Sheshet, 399. 


Endless complications resulted in the Middle Ages from the 
law binding a woman who had accepted a ring or other valuable to the 
man who had given it to her. Even if the Rabbis were satisfied 
that there was no good cause for considering the Kiddushin valid, yet 
they would hesitate to permit a woman who had been the victim of 
such a fraudulent Kiddushin to marry another man without a bill of 
divorcement. The only remedy was to forbid the performance of 
Kiddushin except in the presence of ten people. This was often done, 
but it was seldom that the Courts assumed the power of declaring void 
Kiddushin performed in violation of such an ordinance. See above p. 80. 

3 The Court of R. Ammi and R. Assi is mentioned (Gittin 36b) 


in connection with the right to issue a Prosbul, but that court is cited 
here as an example of an authoritative Jewish court. 


CHAPTER XI . 323 


Whoever transgresses any of the four said regulations 
of this ordinance shall be excommunicated and separated 
from the Community of Israel, and declared anathema 
before God and men, and he shall also be compelled to 
pay a fine of a hundred ducats, half of which shall be 
given to most illustrious governor and half to the Syna- 
gogue. Nor shall any member of our Community be 
permitted to escape by saying that he no longer wishes to 
be a member of our community but prefers to join another 
community; in spite of such a claim, he shall be declared 
under excommunication and under a fine of one hundred 
ducats. 


Regulation 5. We have ordained that if a father ar- 
ranges for the betrothal of his daughter after she is mature, 
that is after she has reached thirteen years of age, he must 
ask her whether she is satisfied with the betrothal which he 
has made, and they shall write into the document the 
promise of her agreement so that she may not have any 
excuses for change of heart saying that her father be- 
trothed her against her will.* 


Regulation 6. If the wedding take place on Friday,? 
it must be performed before noon so that it be not pro- 
longed and the Sabbath violated. 


Regulation 7. We have ordained in order to inculcate 
modesty in Jewish women that they shall cover... . .and also 
their flesh shall not be seen.....:.... for this causes 
strengthening and the arousing of evil passions, and all the 
more shall they be obliged to cover those parts.......... 
prepared to entice and lure the hearts of men. It shall be 
an obligation resting on (every man to exhort) his wife 
time and again, and similarly a father shall exhort his 
daughter, so that the daughters of Israel may dress modestly 


t Rabbinic law permits the father to give his daughter in marriage 
to the husband of his choice till she is twelve years and six months 
old: the age of thirteen is mentioned here is being approximate; after 
the girl has reached that age her consent is required for marriage. Unless 
that has been obtained she may nullify the Kiddushin. 

2 Weddings on Friday were forbidden in Talmudic times, but 
they became quite common in the Middle Ages. 


‘ 
324 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


and not like outcasts. But they shall be careful in their 
bodies and in their clothes, so as not to transgress the pro- 
hibition against imitating the Gentiles. 

(Regulation 8). The ancient ordinance that every sick 
person lying abed with chronic fever, shall, if there is a 
. suspicion of danger to life, confess his sins, since there 
is no one “who hath power over the day of death’’!? and 
there is nothing more doubtful than life as the Rabbis say 
“Let one repent today, lest he die to-morrow.”’? Thus 
he will be assured that the Holy One, blessed be He, will 
be kind to him, will forgive him all his sins, and heal him 
and bring him back to his health, even as the saying of 
the Psalmist, ‘‘who forgiveth all thine iniquity, who healeth 
all thy diseases.’ 

(Regulation 9) The ancient ordinance that it shall not be 
permitted anyone to tear his hair ‘“‘nor make cuttings 
in his flesh’’,4 because of any dead person. Thus we shall 
obey the law of our Torah which says, ‘Ye are children 
of the Lord, your God; ye shall not cut yourself (nor make 
any baldness between) your eyes for the dead, for thou 
art a holy people unto the Lord,’ 5 since every child of 
Israel is endowed with Immortality of the Soul and a 
portion in the Resurrection of the Dead in the world-to- 
come. 

(Regulation 10) No woman shall be permitted to act as 
‘‘mourner or one who wails” for a dead person whether 
the deceased be a Jew or a Gentile in any manner or form 
either on the Sabbath or on Festivals, since as is well known, 
this practice is antagonistic to our Torah. 

Regulation 11) Whereas it is a usual matter far wretched 
orphans to fall into need because of the collection of the 
dower-right by the widows, therefore have we seen fit to 
establish a regulation and an ordinance which will be 
upright in the eyes of God and man; namely, that if a man 


t Eccl. 8.8. 

2 Sabbath 153a. 
ACY s.)Laais: 

4 Deut. 21.5. 
5 Deut. 14.1. 


CHAPTER XI 325 


die and is survived by sons and daughters which he had 
by the widow, she shall collect only that property which 
she brought to her husband, but her Ketwbah and the Addi- 
tional Ketubah shall remain. in the hands of the orphans. 
But if no children by her survive him, she shall collect all 
that is due her, both the property which she brought him 
and the Additional Ketubah. Similarly of the wife die, 
and she is survived by sons or daugthers by her husband, | 
he shall be obliged to give to the children all the property 
which their mother brought him and he shall not keep for 
himself more than a third of the property which she has 
brought him.? All this have we ordained in order that the 
orphans may be supported from the property of their 
mother or the estates of their father until the Lord have 
mercy on them. 

(Regulation 12). In order to remove every suspicion of 
deception which may occur in the selling of wine since it 
is possible to mix wines or to sell two or more jars at the 
rate which the officers fixed for one, therefore henceforth. . 
_....every pious wine-seller shall be careful and take heed 

not to do such a thing, for besides being fined in the pre- 
scribed manner he shall be declared excommunicate and 
anathema.? 

(Thrice during) the year, on the Passover, Shebuot 
and Succot Festivals, this ordinance shall be read and 
its memory shall not pass away from our children forever. 

All the rules, regulations and ordinances of this Takkanah 
shall be an obligation resting on every member of this our 
Community, that he may keep it with his whole heart and 
soul, for ‘‘they are life unto those that find them’’.3 
In order to give even more power and authority to all 
that has been written above we shall beg the rulers to give 
us the authority to declare a severe and complete herem 
against anyone who refuses to obey or opposes anyone 
of the (regulations) and he shall be separated from our 


* Compare Takkanah passed in 1494 at Fez, Kerem Hemer II, 
§ 2 and 3. 3 

* Compare Takkanah of Castile, 1432, p. 366. 

3 Prov. 4.22, 


326 JEWISHESELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Community. This is beside the punishment of the one 
hundred ducats for the person transgressing any of the 
first four regulations» of this ordinance. In order to 
establish, strengthen and make permanent all that has 
been written above we shall ask the Rulers that they may 
agree to affix their endorsement as is explained above. 
These are the names of the children of Israel who were 
chosen and of the officers who were in office at that time; 


The Elder, the Scholar Menahem Cesano 


: iE Nota Abraham Pipi 
of Pel aly Se he Shabbetai Dinti 
Daniel Cornil 
y et Elijah Dimordo 
i Meo Abraham Gaon 
.Isaac Moli 
R. Samuel Cesano, officer 
R. Hayyim Pipi, officer 


On Sabbath, the third day of the Omer, of the year 
9412, Abraham ibn Ezra and the prince........ of the 
Italian Congregation put before the chosen leaders the 
necessity of explaining the above ordinance, especially 
the first regulation, which says that “if it should be ne- 
cessary to delay the time of the wedding, etc.”’ They 
agreed to explain: That whereas in the said ordinance, 
the first regulation says that ‘‘if any accident should occur 
and they be unable to arrange for the wedding and be 
compelled to postpone the time of the Huppah, then when 
the month passes by, the bridegroom shall leave the house 
and shall not again come in to the house of his betrothed 
untii it is the proper time to perfo.m the ceremony”’ 
and these words are obscure, since it is not definitely 
stated how long a time is meant by ‘‘the proper time’ 
to perform the ceremony’. Therefore the undersigned 
chosen men, have declared that by the expression ‘‘ proper 
time’’ is to be understood eight days before the wedding, 


« The words .w27 nyw seem to have been taken not in the sense of 
proper time but time of preparation. 


CHAPTER XI 327 


so that he may be there at the time of the preparation of 
necessary things for the wedding. If during those eight 
days an accident, clear and definite before everyone should 
occur and he be unable to marry...... he shall again 
leave the house of his betrothed and shall not enter until 
the time of preparation for the wedding. The time of 
preparation shall be only three days before the Huppah.... 


. CHAPTER Xt 


TAKKANOT OF ARAGON 


The following Takkanot were first printed by Schorr 
in 7e-Haluz, 1. 20, from a manuscript which is now 
in the Bodleian Library (Neubauer 2237, fol. 271). As 
no other Ms. of it is available, it is here reproduced as it 
first appeared, although the text in several places appears 
to be corrupt. 


Dial talents 


sat ay bombo ory wo) ma nas Dene a me 

myn won now> oon nen Apy “Ty m3 wp MwA) ANI M359 
wnd2 maaD .7OIN Ay myxp mon pon xd Syi ,po Ww DbT pyn) 
mbox a>en ayn mms ind: nD) AMNwD TAI |AMDN) Tow b> 
near Sy japon Spa pad jp ns on odsan aye wean nN WD 723 
atn2 pays mayo aby oda b>w apd oxan mia ban be 
my>> mys ID Ty. NP’ AMS ANIA WS AMRIT ANDI 
oO AND ayn ary yod jonas moody nb wow onmimpa onapwa 
Sve your wbn sada a5 oan .onaw) oyna nwa > axnd ovn 
mioy> ond n> pS IND Ayoo mbayt JPN OMNI wT oOnenna 
ny mpy>t mm nn WS .TIAyD mI¥2 onYTA ay) yom bo n2 
ody mo nar .oxn oxen> unz nep pow ad wd movd joo 
myay mbmp moa) .miobn m207 137) DoD wy °D INSON , Mw ws 
7N> mows Sa oT pT ANT pys row) ,aow> yrs pm nuad mawrn 
Sy PDN WoT Dw UMN APS wrysa wns Mpa mybnz b> 
TVONT Wwe) Popa oNAD Jor -w oo wy pr wwyn rot. yww vt? yD 
opine ym jopaws neabn apy ma wab> nd mwyd ay avon 
myn 92 owp add avin AAA wan ,wanNd oI oyn noxdpa 
nd yen pri bana ,pymn Snn wm on) .tyob) aya ams pond 
OY OPT OX PAM yum wen qwe Adxnd ahp oyowa rp xd 
onvaa Syne $2) ,oar my nat on .ponm yrxm b> inn ans 
ordi wun’ ova jOMDy wr ang bapa b> .wany oan 
Sn nn way ADD wy xd awed corp ond ws bD7 oF Idx 


CHAPTER XII 229 


wad moton ar by jpinw pint otpya Sew by opty wy jon 
PVA OR Py INN 731 7D oN WIAD ANDw SD AAT ry iow 
sewn wes b> ob) asp mp) Axpson 9 TI 9 Nd) onDwoD AMM 
Sn p21 ans amas mbrpa b> meyna bay nwy ax sex prya 
1y> TIP ON) M92 ND 372 NF JAN ON) Mpa aw npr 595 sp 
ysrend yee yoo was) sia $ma osx ,oon pions am own 
mond yes nnn tw bxa yndnmd oniaa port oma ombsnwna 
b> °D wms12 Any .mwyd mona ona wr wr b> onD axa Kb 
NP_ aT WY TY umN AoA aw yy bo. KA naw mApdn 
by op yi ayn nan ays mon ty to wey or addy cad ayy 
D’Tay WNOTN was PAN nD Sy DIN TD Soma aM Mw ANIA AeA 
IND ITI UN WS Nya pamwe2 wy SxAd wb aw xbdq jwpodd 
DA? PR WS Ik¥D "TD OTTy nye om sath pasa pr wrx qwxs oD 
DVT > .ONNI TxA OTD 12 Sen xd word oyA aM zy 
Syne a Sx yn aosn onatn ee by jones onna open 
Wap) eAN Aaya me o> sex mbd yn aes jaNd Nn 
opwa naw? raw? pap amy on? gp) ‘Mary oxa poND mbaprn 
by mnoy idmpi odipd yow sp 'n WSR OMPIwM .MINI MMA 
INDI WV WIM .AWNAD Ow IPD Ox yD ‘Mm omIDS ody ,owDs 
DIVX OI OND wpy 77D vod ism ONS MOXY PRO ND AYN 
on? Swop oyna ate jew oma qd) end apy nvaby 
nyna? wy) opny oat mo waym Co > mew 'y) oon 
TOP OPN? OF OPN CD OD TX ODM OVEMD ONT? ad 
ma) m1 byw Sapo Sata jane one: ony Stam con o-nd 
APM Way yISD PIND WR ATID oT OMX Tw WYO 
Wy AYIND wsap Dx qw AIM WAT py rat ma ody nna 
INST De PSN Vw yop OTD TawA Tay nop) oF opr re 
m2 aw> uxap wes .pxapso yeas nypo oxap inyod uns 
Pew ont yx? Sa bay pxw ma p> AND wap Madr winw 
FION) ON7 5} NWN C2" 8" mye) ainD> pap pane aa mn 
7 TY? 1D ON PINT MpID yaIND yap aT mx dyn ont 
oveia msy mv> omdian oy ws Aoxnna sows my yma 
oxdn na TN? wT ,oAxD nx ab joenp nap dxannb 
mr S¥oM) ONT Pya swr dws nD Dy nx myd nyt n> pords 
brs oN) AYP mwPA aM jean poxa omds x73 oO” qwKD) «mn 
pS 8271 exvd7 ,2)nny1 poy ND ww Maya IP mwpA isn 
miroa mary bow dbwh onnxa maw oyn maaw > nnn mby 
7 nom °> rsd asooon wanpdno ex nbnn nxwom jn 
Rxon N89) P28 MMIDNT OD nMN b> yenD ADAy yun mdzpa 


330 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


syn xO ons bs nnx on) santaya vyo ano md nvend ap 
bon xboo> Ty wt ovion wD osm mn mbnd any wh 
swx qbon om bs mwa Aw to wby Sun Apom sand oda 
naw PDD yw psyy pa yp> ANN IND MANY UMS PRIA 
maxon oa bab nm aad unvad wna am 3at5 jytom yon 
yip> pnond nt bon bs sai joa) .nnwe 7D ux a onbady 
by arto taymdy ob axnd wp Sy ozond »ndonar inansa 
n> yorxd: wmnson 737 by wb nnb opps inxs unrmdi innop 
boa oan ans wsx2 b> unyn> wom OppoD mem oA 
ws jn ays om mipnm 7M pola Mans7 mw2_Nn 727 
Ow won on Ty move opiya by Ay bom ints nx ndid% n> 
oats) mapna $55 onrad jo ws uno od wos00 mbsn anathy 

ows moxm 


TVS TN? AWS TN 


YMINDD PMN) NT IND Wwe NwP Sty 1295p SoD wD NoNd Aon 
nd) ormax> mtpoyy xm oprn ona obxa mon ton °Dbn ynitdini 
mnonvn x32 yp5 any on ardn wns ard. 493 nots by, ova 
[vx myon oxn nydxm antm Sar mby pton ana -ws ,ny Dn 
by ox a mpm on bo bs ya p>: .osim opnsn prata 
oan ow ow mows po-monn Sx od) ow oon pan oo? 
swoyun wpa idsanw osaon 

2y7 PD AT ANDI ova ws Aya poxn ay nawny pAb 
oTn>2 nxt 55 apy” ywpa aoxd pmwinn be od) mew wy WA Dd 
Som apis mwys ax nya oanno onym nnm mw npn ow 
DIDNT OTT 29 Moy Paryni? we 203 OI mM OT yA? 
ots 722 by Fp mown ‘a oben on Now ox we omby mx 19d 
Mad ory mand yep onxon Sy por Ox joyin ropwo ana 
by 0D ,oYy naa> ums mow> oddon ~ws yoota n5b>> ypinm bax 
SO awY WIN ONNON 

oxy ay xd) wos ON pin psa yews pind owd ny 
aw Sy jormpm onnsx tu> meyd ows Sew nyo wre rdw 
onat D> ws w>aw Srp ivrixd wy reso omboia mb 25 onon 
oT? YW AWN WATT Wp an aty7 Sy) aa ywe” ond np Sy 
at Sy meen om oysa ans o2ad) jor ob> omnbs nx Sy swr 
poming Syn ,otaxd ona or by rp nde swe b> Sy pn orn spin 
Mya non vawon» Sy qwsx nxving wean nd ATA NAM Op ND 
*> ANDY NIDM WN) OF AIMS OMIM ww paNT ay or Sy on ARe 


CHAPTER XII 331 


by asad wo wpnst ow wow yyod> mmsn owe yrs nop NI 
WRT? NS TW OPW ONO WD po NIT POND 7 WR 9D 
ono an mp ont AMS 79 °D ,pDIN2 wnynd) pays mo 

onbp wap API? ond rawr odo) on oxy cwRa cy 
soi son tes py ond ar oyad asaw addi qewhy pst irdy mand 
OnNDY TN Woyw NIT) Nwxw m2 OND OTA wD miyd Dp 
317 ora mon Sy in01 

9272 o8 7D oT nbddia mron nvpn aan ndad axaw ny 
7 AMIN pr aw gw Nd aoxd ondsxa wnoe> moan $5 aw 
pO NIA IN TP pre oA ox oy mnt npon 7272 4N .o Den 
myo INA DIIW WES ND LTT by myrnoa yn qwe xd insta 
paw xo at by ww men bax ant p> 12 pny xin ap ond 
INA ON. MPN ID Nd aN pwrw> qm md 12 Swnoz 
TT Yani? BOWS NPI TD|VA jw mew InN mt pp Nd 
non? IpDyT ws bd °D prom yow pd mor tad yyw wena 
rm aw by apn dwn os yan nso nxt ann apn 
[1 NP 8? ONT wom AND xixp onymD bbq Aa OAT PN 
bey nny qwor rato ar byy pr xd) you mds sw ay xb 
1an> °D oO) OTD} ya nymd yaw oyA pon oan joa 
pasa xd) nossa xb mow omby 

Dy WS Ten Dw? AXP INN AX ON WW TY TNA pDTd 
ww PO Pomm> mawA> arnn dsc ona TNNd pwy WN pwyT IN 
12 omar ows qwrd naend npr xd) onion op by 

PoNID Ty bo wt 7? Sy mwyd sro nbynd anon b> 
nao yoy a> 5 wbs mp qoxon O29 DYyIT WN WWND ODN 
soy> ow 195) mona ANAM non AwE OWN mnbww ws07 wes 
We? oI Ory Sy max nem ws pend moxbon Sy 
oO? NSON 

ww odpm oat bom oon ory boaw zyw500 ar tabp 
ainad) oren> ory mad Sanend oad n> am ona py 
b> oma yerd Sanemdy ymobm ops arya ombw adams omdy 
Daya oN APN Sein aw b> Oo A 4bon Ns DY ONpN oD 

WR oO ywa vied ody yawn now 737 by pinmw :ww20n Ty 
ay7 ,oSan7 nx onoxay mbpnr pasa mba ovo won sms 
Deen DD) HEWN YY awrT TP mwA1 ND 7D OSww var Aye dpn 
Pray 8s ods pro si onbdsd vpn > yew) NdN ]ND IND pR 
mx ov °> OM Mpa Dd ASX .pnamdy pan powa n> ona nD wr 
OV AB wm 75) .ADII ADDNM pI Sy nawd mo KAn nS ow 
Op) opi? va DD OMwEIa ONYN OFT PX NDI poya omay 


332 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


oxap mbob arn ont Soa wabdsd ayo ar as a> arn nwea 
mxon any > As won pbs osiap ovo amd) Atyd: onD7 yD 
PR WYN NAY) ITD PIP SND) WPIN Wow wT 12 qwND Aydy 
obs ‘7 awd job) nox? naw mm oyn maaw > ,nnzin Sapp aA 
soo pedn Sa ayad wos Anes) ,oxdn ta wos jo? bya 
py men p> anywn oD aytn poy mond ws ony onoxa RxD wr 
conxsiad) mbapm b> ayys sian pwbor sua wendy joan 
Ob aoc pn ia yr $55 naga wan mrv>on 7at mitw ome 
5455 pn won Nx? Sbw ova mrvdna xd woy v9 

unyad swos0n mopi aban esata mpr xb on cay AWN 
aps> noon yy mbdsos tat opsa 2555 ap ams oD) noms mod 
xd) npn xb omwynn mod yp $25 qwnr nD pn °D yy? Pw op 
Ty. PS Ws OvaT open by unx7 pre eT mpm bax wenn 
yy quar $5 nbyin ommwp2 aya xd °5$5 pn qe. on open 
aoxyd wim any 55 mobnd mobn yo mbboa xxv dpm ps 

a> Joon 48 myna ooym onom own daApwo bane ny 
b>) bsrwp ans wei naw ow Soy pow nep wyw womp nwyd 
nob onpdds onw> mwa oa xbw ods ata 829 ons SpA 
FDn waa mda pan yo wad ram bas ooina wow>) oxaxa op 
wom wre Syn ond yap 

womp mwy>s onym onom own wapm ny boa sw 200 hy. 
npp> ow nvny mbapa $25 omdS> oredy mows onan ianinw 
bd nvdS> wompa taba) ooxy onan ow 195° ww mbnrpn -riya 
mabnn 

Ow won prowuenp paya bonew swoD0m hy 

wp) aaNad may wD amps Any oom wna wx IdInw ny 
od55n wei vyos ay Sma oy opox annd: oneen 337 by ims 
qbon 48 nN yaw onin pend ibanew wospn oan Ipys? 
by ox o> we) may oon tat by woya oc yom wi Sab amp 
8D PNIAN) NTT WS I 

ay q>on wax nso onmn xxi> oar idanew swo200 ny 
yme’DIp eR DDT -wmd axdbw ow yrnpb mnraw mbzpn aron xbw 
mbapn by sd) ay qbon cos om Sy mo an ony wR 

DITA TAN wows pood ay Joon ts wd pnnnd sdtne ny 
yorpprad Abnna mvy: mess mb ov px ums 1b oD AS YD a? 
atm Svan anyy onby yyw mm qyod mbnpa nwpad ndoxt 

ow meyd Soy xbw ayawa ay abn ‘xo omn pend ny 
pap> mbapm wana a Ss) a ove mbrp w mbnrpn by prosper 
oT ion nyd Dbl Pw yyy -yya prya yn wx bom om Ox 


CHAPTER XII 333 


ym ox yo am bw no ,zwr was omy yand np abo ox Sop 
WUNIDWN ODOT 

Sana wind -bano on wr oxgpa n™y q>o7 8 ox TwRD 
moent> wba myTbD Ww] AXpN ON WI ID woo ydyw Syxw 
omin pemdy yer onan ibanww us207 pows? ax aby drm 
opr aps wem ia odanen awe pestn yews ny Joon 48 oxo 
mp oF asp wwra tata a nnd ba xb qs oD onw ot 

penyy monn maxi diy mbapr Syn Spa Sanwad sun2pa ny 
aroy maw qbon ‘as p> amy abo 8 aXM 71 oD pypan 
Jno) AWA upna mw ps q7do>1 wy tap Nwo NIT OD TY" 

wawnip mey> xbw ap qdon ws neo omn pend susspn ny 
won of OAT YX wasnt od oA Iu. a7 awa pnd 
xdoS) mann MSs W12 °D On Awp os Ta onn> Fox pri nD 
nepa> j2 ox xbs od ood omam ay don soxd nbyin 
O20 

Sxpwp nvpad sapad sbw a aon ws neo prand sbsnw ny 
monna wr ox AN awrd aytoxdp anid unx3 772 yarn 7D o8 xbox 
mand Sspwe> mwa aa xby mwyw noyann ow ayann bya ox 
yaar 7a azy> Sypepnr Dov x9 127 ADp yyn> w Send > pans 
tom bon mind 3x7) O8 IN TWP Mwyd wT ON 

poxy mwys mosno osm oampion wdoy bw omn pp ny 
yiand O7N Pa ww Ayan ows AXD 29 7197 OWA pram Dyn 
a5 amid) orm mew moa waren 

my qoon 8 nyo omn pad onan banew ss.00 ny 
boon npon yined mara mpnnwon mbapo mbnpi abnp b> mond 
DD nea ds maxim pynd> ware wra mwym eee DD mby 
Sy nronm mewn mwyne ,prmaai mo na yn ww Aa qbon "8 
spon yrnp> anonw abmpn msexindy onosona ona: 

ov DAanD2 on orm wy mennyn mbnpm b> pry why 
NN Woy myth mbyd ons on °D) jOMYya AND) MDNbor nymd 
> omdyta anya ona wnyrmmon mapd oy amy ws syn yp 
Ans ax uns onynd oa aby xd ove joprya noxdon maw 
raraw sw yo pri arndyim od$5 ory nxpa Stnwad oraax us 
um xd) Ona onal oavy onyma ndyina opdn inp’ om uns 
wey ODI MaaM mMomnn ams baw wos07 yD Sy jANSTa opdn 
sbon 8 xo omni pew ndyin mbapm omed ona qwow onan 
om>y win nbyinn -p5 myaym oms3 opdn yrned omaon> a 
Tam ory msi 

pw sas oxy ay qbom x nyo omn pend sus20n ny 


334 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


a7 bon rat bvad andi ow usy mpnneom mbapm boo tm 
10 NMS ow Wo DNA Osan n> yd) Syad w nT MpnnwnnA 
oon onan ory maid omby us2pn aw mosomm mpnz 
Sx Ime yoy amingd) ims 7p") woo Sstanb mbzpm b> jarnnw 
MNS JN b> mwyd bop may a7 Oye 13 wow Py) WIN 
mpnnwon mbapa b> oxxiwd omrya aye 

13 wom oad Sy mbapz nw nDNA MrannAn qatw Dd ny 
DWINT Pw mm °Dd ai 12 Jwor ndynnna ps oxmap nbxab mwyd 
an> sx> Sanvmd oda ons ow Soy xbdw aos00 a Sy onan 
ory Soa) oon ona own 715 nym ay qbon 48 oN 
OX OFPANN JT Ow won qn ANS mM>sInws ow mvyds xd) oon 
nyo mbapm b> 72%” yn OTN pypa .X> ON JOIN NowoNa Ww sow 
ond yon none Sy ana dane mom pwdo pra ims ware 
anew mor owsry Jato by or may ans As mbapz nex 
Ov TN 13 

b> op awa ww ay don 8 nN on pad swo207 hy 
yya aANPY op ams ody aayn b> pup jo on. oriyn 

wo OomN pemd ar oTINpA DNA Opn d2aw so NAD UR Hy 
—~ Sy omn pead ona ann mean vay 4don aN monn 
Ory. ASP qwro ondi oy ow oxy 

oT. n> Pow on orynr boa banww osramy swo207 hy 
od5o95 onatn $53 uns ton paym °p Sy oon arin b> by 
mbnp aya ow ona yw arate by mm modem mbap bab 
sya an) ayord) mbap aya ans ps mbap aya ow s»ndup 
WoT OMe xYndupo OWT yr! AM WAM oN API ox mbzp 
sav ans) moby wpwnpis ony vor Sy wnnew mbaprz sa ona 
3m 3ya) yan Ww ims wo aryd>s AMP 7 AN oYdy MNT Wy 
on723 OF wD OMS nYobor 

Tiny wo207 7D by ay woy wnnw xd pros mbrpw ved sy 
o>0m) onny Annwi> ompos ons In NYNbupD Ow Pa nd nD 
17 ,onDy ANnwaAdS yew OFPyA ANTw ODI ONIN omE boa oADy 
banww owe nv72 pays yt arra pon ps maxis npn paya 
snoxw mo b> $$5a) .ond jw nA TAN AMDT IDNA nen pyar 
7m ony wow ap Sa) ory msiod aon nea odwnd mwyd 
axy opnnenn b> dyn by Sap opp 

syyya Ssnwmby nppd oon onan $5 ianmw :an20n hy 
pbaio by ns a bond idoy 8dr ody odoinn oriym b>) on 
5> ns ond yrpem ~ws mbapm nn p> aman) Sanwa ianm Sax 
TYiaw NIA ory asap nvow bao 


CHAPTER XII 335 


boy xbw on tnxd ow oad yorr ods oxw suo200 my 
7) ooIpoa ons mod voyw omy odor oriyn by ppd 
OP. w>DoV OAM OPI IW Py imMEKa ond. onD 


osnn> ara menneen mbapan Sap Sap $5 anmw siw207 hy 
mbrpn b> by) ody oranaim 1a D0 1s ond nw now ImKNa ON 
opm oman oms $52 anny jomey andin $5 Syn ara mennwnn 
boa ws oD Onn wd by orans) mbrpn ombw wD07 ws ODI 
bow ossnn ombwan ond nin none oon oan wow nD 
many sy wapa mbap $955 ami orm A Pra amy raya 
mn) wx open ory abs $5 sadp) corms unr wx on 
oxy ny woD07 n>ynS ainsw now Sy onary ndioy n> omby 
n> mow $5 ndynn 1a we rat aps mbap> qaoxw orya ay? 
amt Sy o>ox7 momnow omn xsd Stnend op. men 


b> wid aboy wndia poy ornayd ynw no Soaw suns0n Ty 
mbrpn b> 1am omry mynd pam pata way MINX [MN 
sex apidna ob by on wxrw ap boa opbnm yrned arm mennenn 
OPPs 

ommaxim ommbapn pawn jmd> onan iarynm xbw swo207 ny 
omsi xyndypds sendyvpaw oms mm unx7 imsbo5 ams 55 yds 
paar AN Yd) 1D) 7A Ara wDDw BD PIN 715 prNAW 


sbon 78 nyo omn ppm ma cxoxo boa Sanwad wo207 ony 

mmoipon ones pnyn> ory indwoo non aws onan b> nnd a> 

mwan Wwe naw ops S23» awapA mapa ad) n9b$ mobnn 
orn ay mwyi nos pn b> $yad) orp om anni 


‘word) Sap yrpny a sn mys npibn mwynw wos my 
wownpin) aryds am ptory msi) nosnq moder mbap an 7D) 
| mw 


mood opiInnt x woD0N ODN OYiyn So) nnn moso7 551 
Pw ANS AM aww now jms SD ar boy ovpd woxy dy bap) 
xobya oat por ards wan bas ap 4>0m ‘a0 yyw mn > 
Two UX Ar wonM wand) Aen wDd> yp mw nav wIna mw no 
T'D2 SP IwYP PIDIw DAA Pa wy awa AN > ww NDAD wpwr>pr 
73 wy mova > ww none ATA ow) anawn w1Dd> 7) nw man DY 
bom onawnd 37 nw “asww wearsp wp oT pina odd) oaayn 
op) aw 


oay>s am 0>w wpwap 2'T WN) mw 


336 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


ABSTRACT OF TAKKANAH 


The Takkanah is written in the mediaeval poetic-prose 
style with innumerable references to verses, rendering a 
translation into another language practically impossible. 
The introduction recites the woes that have befallen the 
Jewish people. ‘“‘Many of faint heart, weak by nature’”’ 
seeing the implements of torture were unable to withstand 
the trial and vielded their faith, “crossing over the bridge 
in their distress’. Apparently some of them turned against 
their former brethren, “bending their bow, making ready 
their arrow”’ to shoot by their deadly defamations whom- 
ever they pleased. The people of Israel have thus come 
into hard times. Unless immediate action be taken 
danger would result to the whole community. It was their 
duty to take counsel and to save themselves and theirs 
before the evil fell. Already there were cases of murder 
and riot here and there, and no effective protest had been 
raised. If ‘“‘the communities were made into a single 
union with a common treasury” they would be in a posi- 
tion to defend themselves, and to bring punishment on 
such as attacked them. Of what value would their money 
be to them if there lives were in danger? Since there was 
no leader taking upon himself the duty of protecting ‘‘the 
sheep of the Lord”’, the delegates has assembled at the call 
of the Jewish Community of Barcelona to take counsel 
in the critical situation. 

It was evident that the matter could not be left to 
the individual communities to deal with separately, as 
singly they were far too weak for the task. The only means 
for saving themselves in the situation was to use their 
money power, and they feared that “if one community 
will not help the other, we will be unable to bring the 
money which is annually assessed against us to the treasury 
of the King” and that ‘we will appear ungrateful”’ in his 
eyes and the eyes of the princes. It was therefore necessary 
to perfect an organization which should be responsible for 
the funds. A commission would be appointed to wait on 


CHAPTER XII 337 


the King" in order to secure his assent to the formation of 
the union, and the ordinance which were enacted by the 
council. The commission was to hold office for five years. 

They were to strive to obtain from the King the following 
kindness: 


1. That he should intercede with ‘“‘the King of Nations, 
the Pope’’,? either in writing or by sending “many and 
worthy ambassadors”’, so that he might grant the Jews 
the following: 


a. A decree forbidding the masses of the Christians to 
fall upon the Jews whenever a natural visitation, such as a 
plague or famine, occurs. They should rather seek the 
favor of the Lord by good deeds of charity and kindness, 
and ‘‘not add transgression to their sins” by destroying the 
Jews whom, according to their own faith, it was their duty 
to protect. 


b. A law among his Decretales forbidding the Christi- 
ans to make attacks on the Jews because of alleged 
desecrations of the host.4 Such a case had occurred 
shortly before at Seville. The alleged offender should be 
tried properly and punished if found guilty, but the Pope 
was to forbid under pain of excommunication any general 
attack on the Jews. Moreover he was to declare im- 
possible the miracles that were usually alleged with re- 
gard to the desecration of the host, and which were relied 
upon to incite the mob to violence. He was to make clear 
“that any one who believes in all such things is a heretic 
against his own faith and laws, which command that they 
leave us a remnant in the land.’’ 


t Peter IV (1336-1387). Alfonso IV whom Schorr mentions as 
the king at the time ceased to reign in 1336. 

2 Innocent VI. (1352-1362). 

3 The suffering of the Jews as a result of the Black Death is in- 
describable. The persecutions appear to have begun in Catalonia 
and spread rapidly throughout Europe. See J. E. III, 233. 

4 Accusations in regard to the desecration of the host seem to have 
begun about the middle of the thirteenth century. The particular 
outbreak at Seville is not otherwise mentioned to my knowledge. 


338 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN.THE MIDDLE AGES 


c. A decree forbidding the placing of the Jewish quarter 
in a state of seige about the time of Easter. He was to 
declare it a grievous sin to pain the Jews in any other way 
than that declared by law, namely that they should re- 
main in their houses behind closed doors “‘on that day.’ 


d. A limitation on the power of the Inquisition, de- 
claring a Jew to be guilty of heresy only when he denies 
some tenet of his own faith, as for instance the existence 
of God, or the Divine origin of the Torah. But no Jew 
should be subject to the charge of heresy for supporting 
heretical views of a Christian which are in consonance 
with the Jewish faith. Indeed such a one might be sub- 
ject to punishment by the secular power but was to be 
exempt from the Inquisition. If the Commissioners should 
find themselves unable to obtain this concession, they were 
to seek a decree ordering the Inquisition to furnish the 
accused Jew a statement of the charges against him, and 
the Jew was to be granted the right of’ Counsel. Ordinarily 
the Inquisition defended its denial of both elemental rights 
of an accused person by expressing the fear that if the 
accused should be a person of influence he might escape 
punishment if he were granted these rights, but since there 
could be no fear of that in the case of Jews, who were all 
without influence, it was patent injustice to deny them 
this right. 


« Jews were forbidden to show themselves on the streets on Good 
Friday. A church council held at Mayence, in 1259, forbade them to 
appear on the streets on that day under penalty of a fine of one mark. 
At another synod at Ashaffenburg, 1292, the Jews were forbidden to 
come near the doors of their houses or to look out of their windows 
under pain of a fine of one mark. Another synod held at Prague, 1347, 
commanded the Jews to keep away from the streets and remain in their 
homes. 

2 In April 1238, Gregory IX appointed the first inquisitor in Aragon. 
See Lea, History of the Inquisition 1.302. 

3 To defend one accused by the Inquisition was to make oneself 
liable to complicity in the dread crime of fautorship of heresy. In- 
nocent III in a decretal embodied in the Canon Law, had ordered ad- 
vocates to lend no aid or counsel to heretics or to understate their case 
in litigation. Lea, ibid. 1.444. . 


CHAPTER XII 339 


e. Furthermore “let them obtain the further declara- 
tion that if a Christian should desire to return a stolen 
thing which he robbed or took by violence from one of the 
children of Israel, he shall be obliged to return it to the 
Jew, either from hand to hand, or through the priests, 
but he shall not free himself from guilt by returning it to 
a creditor of the Jew”’. 


‘All that has been described above will have to be 
accomplished through our lord, the King, and his ambassa- 
dors, but since we know (best) what our needs are, for 
“the heart knows its own bitterness’? we have decided 
to send men of wisdom and understanding who will go 
thither and be in charge of the matter so that they may 
obtain for us the decrees necessary for the above-mentioned 
matters in so far as they can obtain them.” 


2. Furthermorewe have decided that ‘‘the Commissioners 
shall have power in regard to all the said matters, and all 
matters dependent on them or relevant to them, to choose 
intercessors and agents in any place or kingdom, and to 
strive to secure any sort of improvement at the hands of 
our Lord, the King, or any prince or ruler, or any person 
in the world. 


3. Furthermore it was agreed, that while it was impossible 
to carry out Jewish Jaw, especially where it involved capital 
punishment, still it were well to ‘‘cleanse away every 
Malshin and informer who will be found in any one ‘of 
the cities or to pour out evil on him in accordance with 
his wickedness in the judgement of the Commissioners 
and to make him known as a Malshin and drive him forth. 
Provided however, that the defamation is in regard to a 
public matter, from which there may result, Heaven forbid, 
harm to all our people, but not if it is merely a private 
defamation from which no harm can result.” 


Similarly the Communities were to have a common fund 
to oppose those inciting the popular to violence against 
them since “evil of this sort spreads”’..: But no notice 
was to be taken of merely private quarrels between indi- 


340 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


vidual Jews and Gentiles, if no public harm could result 
therefrom. 


4. Furthermore the sCommissioners were to strive to 
obtain a decision of the Cortes that if ‘“‘anyone slay a Jew, 
or try to incite others to violence against them’”’ he should 
not be given asylum in the territory of any of the nobles 
of princes, but each one must drive him forth from his 
Jand. 


5. Whenever the nobles and princes would gather to 
form a Cortes, the Commissioners were to send their agents 
to guard the interests of the Communities, or the Com- 
missioners themselves might attend them. This only 
applied to the Cortes of the whole kingdom. 


6. ‘‘ Furthermore have we agreed that they should pursue 
this endeavor about the ruling of the Cortes for the five 
years (of their term).”’ 


7. ““Furthermore have we agreed, that whereas the 
tax-collectors have of late gone beyond all bounds making 
sorrowful the souls of our brethren in the matter of their 
extortions and they have bound them in affliction and in 
iron, so that well-nigh unto death do they cry from 
their prisons, therefore have we agreed that the Com- 
missioners should endeavor to obtain a decree from the 
King, forbidding his tax-collectors who rule over our people 
in the matter of taxes, to cause anyone bodily pain, except 
in the manner which the King and his ancestors have been 
in the habit of employing heretofore. 


8. ‘Furthermore have we agreed that the Commissioners 
shall endeavor to obtain a decree from our lord, the King, 
that the Communities should not be compelled to pay 
any salary to the collectors of the tax or asignaciones 
since theic pay used to come from the treasury of the King 
and not from the Communities. 


9. “Furthermore they shall endeavor to beg the King 
to abolish the special tax for the Duke, for, although we 
are his, there is no need for this tax now. For it was 


CHAPTER XII 341 


originally made for the Viscount (of Avila?) at the request 
of the Communities, and at present there is no need of it. 


10. ‘‘Furthermore they shall obtain a decree from our 
King, fortified by an oath, that he should not be able to 
levy any special tax on the Communities or on any _indi- 
vidual Community from this day forth. For when the 
Communities bring their money to the coffers of the King 
they find grace in his eyes and in the eyes of his counsellors 
and princes; also if they are in poor condition our lord, 
the King, may be generous to them in accordance with 
his proper custom, which would not be the case if the 
taxes were assigned. 


11. ‘‘Since the heralds of our lord, the King, demand 
redemption money from any Jew whom they meet walking 
innocently, and if he is unable to redeem himself they 
cast him ‘with thrust on thrust’ ‘and with the garment 
they strip also the mantle’, therefore we have agreed that 
the commissioners should obtain and acquire a decree 
from our lord, the King, similar to the former rule which 
a few individuals sought and obtained from him now two 
years past, but which matter was never carried out be- 
cause they were unable to supply the redemption money. 


12. ‘‘Furthermore we have agreed that thev should seek 
to alleviate from the communities the burden of the expense 
of the beds (or the staffs) which the courtiers of the King 
make and deniand from us, since it is a heavy burden upon 
us and there is no gain to the King in hurting us and wast- 
ing our money. ° 


13. “‘Furthermore have we decided to obtain a decree 
from our lord, the King, promising that he will not appoint 
any Comisares (special investigators) to examine any matter 
relating to Jews. That can be left to the Ordinares (or- 
dinary judges). For the Jews are weak and it is unneces- 
sary to put them in the hands of a hard master; and also 
in that way (by appointing special investigators) the ex- 
penses increase without any gain for the King while the 
Jews grow poorer. The appointment of the Comuisares 


342 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


should only be made at the request of the chosen Com- 
mission. 


14.‘‘Furthermore titey shall endeavor to obtain a decree 
from the King that no investigation shall be made merely 
at the request of the Fiscal (treasurer or financial agent), 
unless there is a claimant in the matter, that is to say a 
Clamador legittmo. And even if originally there was a 
true complainant and he then withdrew the complaint 
or the demand, the F7scal shall have no right to pursue 
him in order to make him pay because of the fine. So also 
the Fiscal shall not be able to prevent the Ordinares (from 
carrying out their wish), if they desire to arbitrate the 
matter, or if they wish to forego it completely in their 
kindness.”’ 


15. The Commissioners shall furthermore obtain a de- 
cree that the Scribes and the court-heralds should not be 
permitted to act as Counsellors in any matter of quarrel 
or contention or in any complaint which one man has 
against another. They should act only as is befitting 
their office and profession. 


16. “Furthermore have we agreed to ask our lord, the 
King, to compel each community of those taking part in 
this synod to pay the share which is assigned to it in 
accordance with the division which is made between us. 

They shall be compelled to pay these expenses in the 
same manner they are compelled to pay the taxes of the 
King, whether by punishment of body or property, or 
by excommunication ot ban. The said compulsion is 
to be executed at the order of the Commissioners and with 
their agreement and at the expense of the Community 
which should refuse to pay its portion. 


17. “Since not all the communities have joined us till 
this day, some of them in their letters making it clear that 
the work is pleasing to them, and that they are ready to 
come up and take counsel with us, nevertheless did not 
come at the designated time, perhaps because of unavoid- 
able accidents; while the leaders of others have informed 


CHAPTER XII 343 


us that the work is proper in their eyes but they did not 
succeed in joining us in one federation; while we need to 
co-operate in regard to some generally useful matters, 
and it is noc fit that we should spend money and that they 
should get their share of the benefit sitting comfortably in 
their homes and not giving their share of the expendi- 
ture; therefore have we decreed that in regard to all 
those .decrees and customs and ways which the Commis- 
sioners will obtain, from which any improvement will come 
to those Communities (which are not represented), the 
Commissioners shall obtain a decree from our lord, the 
King, compelling also the unrepresented Communities to 
pay their share of the expenses of such affairs in accordance 
with the advantage which accrues to them in the eyes of 
the Commissioners. 


18. “Furthermore have we agreed that we should obtain 
a decree from our lord the King, that if any member of 
any of the Communities whether of those who are taking 
part in this synod or of those who are not, shall in the view 
of the Commissioners be guilty of attempting to nullify 
anything that was undertaken in common or to_ nullify 
or lessen the power of the Commissioners or any of the 
Takkanot or Decisions upon which we have agreed,—all 
the Communities shall be obliged to separate themselves 
from him and to punish him and to conduct themselves 
toward him with all the severity and in the manner in 
which the Commissioners will agree and of which they will 
notify them. And in this way they shall be able to raise 
all the expenses which seem necessary to them for the ex- 
penses of the Communities who are combining. 


19. “Moreover since the matter of the said confederation 
which the Communities have taken to their hearts and 
decided to form for their common safety, can only succeed 
through the impeccable character of the Commissioners, 
therefore have we agreed that no person shall attempt 
to obtain a letter from our lord, the King, giving him a 
place and a name among these Commissioners, or in any 
of the said matters. Nor shall one be permitted to make 


344 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


any other endeavor within the five years or after them, 
if they should agree to, prolong the time, under pain of 
fine and excommunication, and that all the Communities 
shall separate themselves from him and shall deal with 
him as they do with a Malshin or an informer. 


20. “The Commissioners will continue to work in accor- 
dance with the power that is given them to disburse the 
funds of the communities, even after the expiration of 
their term in accordance with the way in which they incur 
them in the work during their term. 


21. ‘‘Furthermore have we agreed to obtain a decree 
from our lord, the King, or from his appointees, to establish 
all the said provisions, and that he should fine the one who 
transgresses them such a fine as he may think fit. 


22. ‘‘Furthermore we explain that wherever it is directed 
in this document that the Commissioners obtain a decree 
or decrees from our lord, the King, they have the option 
of obtaining the decree in person or through others as they 
may see fit. 


23. “Furthermore have we decreed that the Commission- 
ers who will take action in all the above-mentioned matters 
and who will have power in regard to all these matters in 
accordance with the provision made, that is to say in re- 
gard to all matters which are of general importance to 
all the Communities, shall be (chosen) in the following 
manner: two for the Communities of Catalonia, two for 
the Communities of Aragon, one for the Communities 
of Valencia and one for the Communities of the isle of 
Majorca, if they will agree to this; and that the two 
delegates for Catalonia shall be those on whom the Com- 
munities uniting on this decision have agreed, namely En 
Crescas Solomon and anyone whom he choose to act with 
him; the one from Valencia shall be Don Judah Eleazar, 
or anyone whom he shall choose in his stead; and for the 
other kingdoms those upon whom they will agree in their 
choice. 


CHAPTER XII 345 


24. “Moreover since the Communities of Aragon have 
not yet joined, therefore have we agreed that the two 
Commissioners from Catalonia or others acting for them 
shall have power to admit them and to come to an agree- 
ment with them regarding all the conditions and ways 
which appear proper for joining with them, whether in 
regard to the division of the expenses, as to the manner 
of sharing it among ourselves, or in regard to the choosing’ 
of men who will endeavor to carry out the purpose of the 
said union, or their manner of action or the power which 
is given to them, and in general, in regard to everything 
. that will appear to them necessary for the completion 
of the said union; and all that they agree upon with them 
shall be established and accepted on us and upon all who 
join with us. 


25. “Furthermore have we agreed that all the Commis- 
sioners shall be obliged to look after and to strive to carry 
out the duty of their office and everything which is placed 
on them; and they may not lighten their burden but they 
shall be obliged to strive and to act in accordance with the 
intentions of the Communities which have entrusted to 
them under oath all the work of protecting their gathering 
and their affairs. 


26. ‘Furthermore have we agreed that if it should happen 
that the Commissioners or any one of them should be 
unable to look after the affairs which have been placed 
on them, they may appoint others in their place and then 
the power of the proxies shall be like that of the principals 
in that matter or in any special matters which they shall 
agree to leave in their hands. 


27. “Furthermore have we agreed that everyone of the 
Communities which are hereby uniting, shall issue a 
herem—in such a formula as the Commissioners will decide 
upon—a herem upon themselves and upon all the Com- 
munities which are hereby uniting, and upon all who will 
join them, to act in accordance with all the customs, 
ordinances and ways which the representatives of the 


346 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


Communities have agreed upon and have written in a 
document signed by them, and with whatever the said 
Commissioners may choose, by the authority which is 
given them by the said representatives of the Communities; 
and whoever transgresses these ordinances knowingly shall 
be declared excommunicate and anathema in all the Holy 
Communities until the Commissioners who carry out the 
duties of their office free him. Besides all these detailed 
matters in which power and authority have been given 
to the Commissioners in accordance with what has been 
described above, we have furthermore agreed that if they 
think that the Communities require something through 
which a general gain may be derived, they shall have the 
power and the right to strive to obtain a decree or decrees 
which may be needed for the purpose. 


28. “‘Furthermore have we agreed that wherever powel 
has been granted the Commissioners they may incur what- 
ever expenditures they may deem necessary for these things, 
and the Communities who unite on this shall be obliged 
to pay their portion of whatever they have spent in ac- 
cordance with the division among them. 


29. ‘‘Furthermore have we agreed that the Commis- 
sioners shall be obliged to give an account of their receipts 
and expenditures only to their several kingdoms, that is 
to say, the representatives of Catalonia shall report to 
the Communities of Catalonia and those of Aragon to 
the people of Aragon in accordance with what they agree 
among -themselves, similarly for Valencia and Majorca. 


30. “Furthermore have we agreed that we shall strive 
with all our power to obtain a decree from our lord, the 
King, to permit the Jews who live under his government to 
remove from the places belonging to the King to those 
under the knights or wherever they may choose, just as 
this right was given them of yore and that he should set 
at naught the decree which is in existence at the present 
day. 

‘‘To all the said decrees and all the said matters have we, 
the undersigned, agreed and we have taken it upon our- 


CHAPTER XII 347 


selves to execute all the documents in this regard which 
will be necessary after we have obtained permission from 
our lord, the King, but we have written all this merely as 
a record of proceedings which took place in the month 
of Tebet of the year 5115 of the Creation. 

We have written and signed this we Moses and Crescas 
by the authority given us for this in a document executed 
by the notary, En Marco Castafiero on the twenty-fifth 
of September of the year 1354, Common Era, and I, Judah, 
by the authority conferred upon me by a document, exe- 
cuted by the notary, Guillem Berndt de Ximo, on the 
first day of September, 1354, Common Fra. And all is 
firm and established.”’ 


Moses Nathan Haii 
Crescas Solomon 
Judah Eleazar. 


CHAPTER XIII 


SYNOD OF CASTILIAN JEWS OF 1432 


The statutes adopted at Valladolid in 1432 have come 
down to us in a Paris manuscript. Their language is 
Spanish, but they are written in Hebrew characters. In 
- 1869 Kayserling gave an abstract of their contents in the 
Jahrbuch fuer die Geschichte der Juden (4.265 ff.). In 
1885-6 the distinguished Spanish scholar, Don Francisco 
Fernandez y Gonzalez published the text with a transla- 
tion into modern Spanish and with notes in the Boletin of 
the Madrid Academy, VII (1885) 145-189, 275-305, 395- 
413; VIII (1886) 10-27. The work was reprinted in 1886 
under the title ‘‘Ordenamiento formado por los Procuradores 
des las aljamas Hebreas, Valladolid, 1432.’’ In the Revue 
des Etudes Juives 13.187 ff. Isidore Loeb gave a descrip- 
tion of the Spanish Jewish communities based on the 
material found in these statutes. An abstract of his article 
was published in Hebrew, in Ha-Asif, 3, 133-147. In the 
following pages an abstract of the document is given. A 
full translation is as yet impossible since the document 
requires editing by a Romance scholar. 

While the text is thus still in a poor condition, the book 
is nevertheless of great importance as throwing light on 
the pass to which the Spanish Jewish communities had 
come in the first part of the fifteenth century. It is a 
picture far from pleasing that we have before’ us, but not 
the less interesting or important for that reason. 

The first lines are missing in the manuscript but they 
must have read approximately as indicated. 

t While the editor possessed a considerable knowledge ofHebrew, 
nevertheless his information on rabbinic works was not quite sufficient 
for the needs of the work. Thus he translates the expression ] NX Nwy3 
“the last tenth of the month’’ instead of ‘‘the last ten days of the 
month.’”’ He could not be expected to recognize the Talmudic expres- 


sion Twya 7a\y ay 7INvon) and so he is led to read wysa for mvy3a, which 
makes no sense. 


CHAPTER XIII 349 


(At the command of the King, the Rabbi of the Court, 
Don Abraham, invited the communities) to send trusted 
men from their Communities who would keep the paths 
of righteousness and with whom he could take “sweet 
counsel’’. And the Communities did as he commanded 
and some of them sent letters to the said Rabbi confirming 
and accepting everything which he would command and 
ordain, and some sent trusted representatives to represent 
them. The princes of the people were gathered together, 
the people of the God of Abraham, in the Court of our lord, 
the King, in the city of Valladolid. And in the last ten? 
days of the month of Jyyar of this, the above-mentioned year 
5192, in the said city of Valladolid, we, the undersigned, 
were present in the great synagogue which is in the Jewish 
Quarter of the Community of Valladolid, when there 
gathered in the presence of the honored prince, Don Abra- 
ham, the Rabbi of the Court of our lord, the King, various 
scholars who came from various communities, worthy 
men clothed with authority, certified by credentials from 
the different communities of the domain of our lord, the 
King, which they presented before us, the undersigned. 
And there were present also some worthy men who go to 
the Court of our lord, the King. They held meetings 
among themselves in regard to a Takkanah which they 
decided was to deal with certain definite subjects and other 
matters, which are for the service of the Creator, the glory 
of the holy Torah, the service of the King, and the success 
and welfare of the Communities. This ordinance was 
agreed upon unanimously without anyone dissenting and 
it was completed on the first day of Sivan of the above- 
mentioned year, 5192. The text of the Takkanah follows 
immediately on our signatures. 


In witness whereof we have signed our names to it: 
Isaac Ha-Kohen b. Joseph Ha-Kohen b. Crispini 
Baruch b. Abraham ibn Sahl. 


1 This expression which seems to have puzzled the editor of the 
document is very common in Judaeo-Spanish writings, cf. Kerem Hemer 
bei, 


350 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


In previous times there were ordained in the holy com- 
munities of the dominion of our lord) the King, general 
Takkanot and regulations which were to be observed by 
all the Communities and those who were at their head, 
so that they might establish Takkanot and choose proper 
paths in which all the people of the Communities might 
walk, thus was the Torah established on its proper foun- 
dation and every Community was settled in quiet. For 
some time past, however, for various reasons no general 
Takkanah has been enacted by means of which the Com- 
munities might be led, as a result of which much harm 
has befallen the communities and there has come about 
disorder in their management. Therefore have we, the 
aforementioned delegates by virtue of the authority given 
by our lord, the King to the worthy Rabbi, Don Abraham, 
and by virtue of the authority given is by our Sages to 
attend to the arrangements of our own Communities and 
by the authority given us by the Communities, we have 
established this ordinance and agreement which we have 
divided into five chapters as will be explained, the follow- 
ing being the text: . 


I 


“This is the gate of the Lord, the righteous shall enter 
into it.’”? 

The first of our decisions and the beginning of our Takkanot 
has for its object the maintenance of the students of our 
Torah. For it is upon the Torah that the world is founded, 
as the Sages say. “‘On three things the world stands, on 
the Torah, on Divine Service, and on kindly acts’’.?, Whereas 
we saw that the hands of the students of the Torah have 
slackened in most places, and that they obtain their liveli- 
hood only with extreme pain, and that for this reason the 
pupils are becoming constantly fewer, and even the children 
of the primary school are idle in many places, because their 
parents cannot afford to pay the salary of those who might 


t Ps. 118.20 
2 Abot 1.5 


CHAPTER XIII 351 


teach them the Torah, and the Torah would almost have 
been forgotten in Israel because of these reasons, and in 
order to “bring back the crown to its ancient glory’ and 
that there may be found scholars in Israel and that the 
students may increase in the Communities; therefore do 
we ordain that each of the Communities of the whole 
kingdom of Castile shall be obliged to establish and provide 
a Voluntary Fund for Talmud Torah in the following manner. 
For every head of big cattle which is slaughtered as kasher 
among them and for them, they should pay for Talmud 
Torah five maravedis; for every calf or heifer which weighs 
one hundred pounds, which are equivalent to twenty-five 
arreldes, they should pay for Talmud Torah two mara- 
, vedis; and for each head of small cattle a wether, a sheep, 
a he- -goat or a she-goat, they should pay one maravedi. 
For each small goat or sheep, weighing less than four 
arreldes they should pay for Talmud Torah one coronado. 
If it weigh four arreldes or more, they should pay five 
pence. For each jug of wine which is sold at retail—(if 
more than five jars are sold at one time, it may be considered 
wholesale),—they should pay to the Talmud Torah three 
pence per jar. If over five jars are sold whether to indi- 
vidual Jews or to Jewish muleteers and _ traders they 
should pay to the said Talmud Torah two, dinars. But 
of the wine which is sold to Christians they should pay 
half a penny for each jar, to the Talmud Torah. 

Whoever makes a wedding shall pay ten maravedis within 
the wedding week. For a circumcision they shall pay 
to the Talmud Torah ten maravedis as soon as the child 
reaches the stage when he is not to be considered any longer 
a nefel.* If one of either sex dies above the age of ten 
years, his or her heirs shall give to the Talmud Torah the 
dress which was worn above the under-shirt, or ten maravedis 
as the heirs may choose. Whoever gives more than the 
above amount deserves a blessing. The tax is to be paid 


t Yoma 69a. 

A child ceases to be a Nefel when it has demonstrated by living 
thirty days that it is likely to live and that it has had full embryonic 
development. See Sabbath 135b. 


352 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


in the coins current or in use at the time of payment. 
The above-mentioned payments of the bridegroom or Of 
one celebrating a circumcision or in the case of death or 
not to be collected from such as derive their maintenance 
from charity or such as are fit to receive charity in the opin- 
ion of the treasurers who be appointed over these taxes. 


We ordain that each community shall be obliged to 
assemble by announcement according to their custom, 
ten days before the expiration of the terms of the farmers 
of the wine and meat tax. And they shall not disband until 
they have let out the tax for the Talmud Torah Fund 
or they shall appoint a trustee or trustees into whose hands 
they may bring the money so that the trustee or trustees 
may hold it in trust until the tax is farmed out. Each Com- 
munity shall be obliged every year to choose two treasurers 
over the said Talmud Torah Fund, so that through their 
hands there may be accomplished whatever the Rabbi of 
the Court may ordain or command in regard to it. 


In those places where there is no tax on meat and wine 
we ordain that within thirty days after the day when this 
ordinance is shown to them, they shall assemble by an- 
nouncement as has been mentioned and establish an 
ordinance in regard to the Talmud Torah in accordance 
with what has been set forth above. 


Moreover do we ordain that in those places where there 
are less than ten families, there shall be established the 
said Talmud Torah Fund as in all the other communities 
in the manner described. That amount they shall be 
obliged to deliver each year so long as this ordinance is in 
force to the treasurers of the Community to whom they pay 
ordinary taxes and they shall take a receipt for the amount 
which they have given. 


In those places where there are ten families or more, al- 
though they pay taxes to another community, they shall be 
obliged to name among themselves a treasurer in whose 
hands they shall entrust the 7almud Torah Fund and they 
shall keep the money until the Rabbi of the Court shall 
give orders as to how it should be used so that the said 


CHAPTER XIII 353 


Talmud Torah Fund may be in general use throughout 
the Communities of the Kingdom of Castile. 

And we ordain that neither a community nor any individu- 
al shall be authorized to use the funds of the Talmud Torah, 
even a single maravedi of it, for any need that may arise 
whether public or private, either as a loan or in any other 
way, but that all the money should rather be in cash ready 
to be used for the purpose which the Rabbi of the Court 
shall order. 

But in those places where there are Rabbis, teaching 
the Torah appointed over the Community they may give 
and pay to the said Rabbior to the pupil their maintenance 
from the said Talmud Torah Fund. And if there is any 
money left of the Talmud Torah Fund after the above men- 
tioned amounts have been paid, they shall be kept for use 
as the Rabbi ot the Court will ordain as has been said. 

Moreover we ordain that if the Rabbi of the Court 
see fit he may ordain that such communities as have a 
Rabbi shall pay him his salary in a different manner and 
should not use for that purpose the funds of the’ Talmud 
Torah. ‘They shall then pay the salary of the Rabbi from 
the taxes on meat and wine or from the income of the 
Hakdesh' or rents from houses and the like if they have 
any. 


PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 


Every community of fifteen families shall maintain a 
proper teacher for the children of primary school age who 
shall instruct them in Scripture. They shall allow him a 
reasonable salary according to his needs. The fathers of 
the children shall pay the teacher each according to their 
means, and if the amount paid by the fathers is insufficient 
for the maintenance of the teacher, the community shall 
be obliged to pay the remainder necessary for his liveli- 


hood. 


t This term which in the Talmud denotes Temple property was 
used in the Middle Ages of funds left for charitable purposes. As 
used in this ordinance the term seems to refer only to endowed funds. 


354 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


RABBIS 


A community having forty families or more shall be 
obliged to endeavor so. far as possible, to maintain among 
themselves a Rabbi who will teach them Halakot and 
Aggadot. The community must maintain him reasonably. 
His salary shall be paid from the income of the tax on meat 
and wine and the income from the Hakdesh, if there is 
any, or from the Talmud Torah Fund, so that he should 
not have to beg his livelihood from any of the leaders of 
the Community, so that he may reprove them and guide 
them in all things which pertain to the service of the 
Creator, blessed be He. If the community and the 
Rabbi can come to no agreement as to the amount of the 
salary they shall be obliged to give him the income of the 
Talmud Torah of the locality and then to increase the amount 
as may be ordered by the Rabbi of the Court. + 


TALMUDIC ACADEMY 


Moreover we ordain that each Rabbi shall maintain a 
Talmudical academy where those desirous of learning may 
study the Halaka. He shall lecture at such hours as the 
Rabbis are wont to lecture. 


NUMBER OF PUPILS PER TEACHER 


Whereas according to the Talmudic law no teacher is 
permitted to teach more than twenty-five pupils,? unless 
he have an assistant, therefore we ordain that no teacher 
shall teach Scriptures to more than twenty-five children, 


* The most important function of the Rabbi is that of teaching. 
It is evident from section 2 that the judges were other men and that 
only in certain cases was the Rabbi called upon to act with them. 

2 Cf. Baba Batra 21. This ordinance follows the view of Mai- 
monides (Yad, Laws of Talmud Torah 2.5.) and of R. Jonah who is 
quoted in Nimmuke Joseph, ad loc. that the numbers permitted in the 
Talmud to individual teachers and to assistants were maximum num- 
bers; Tosafot ad loc. and Asheri differ from this opinion and hold that 
one teacher may be used for any number of pupils less than forty, 
an assistant was required if the number exceed forty but was less than 
fifty, and two teachers were required for fifty or more. 


CHAPTER XIII 355 


but that if he have an assistant he may teach forty in 
accordance with the law of the Talmud.t| A community 
having fifty children shall be obliged to maintain two 
teachers; the same law applied to any number above forty. 


PRAYERS 


Whereas prayer is a most important part of the service 
of the Lord and we have learned by tradition that the 
verse ‘‘to serve him with all your heart’”? refers to prayers ;' 
and our Sages said furthermore, One’s prayer is only heard 
when it is recited in the Synagogue;4 and that prayer with 
the community is the more acceptable;5 moreover it is im- 
possible to recite the Kaddish or Kedushah except in the 
presence of ten people,°so that R. Gamaliel freed his slave in 
order to complete the necessary quorum of ten although he 
who frees his servant transgresses a positive commandment;? 
and whereas there are places where although there are 
ten adult males, yet they do not gather in order to pray 
publicly; therefore do we ordain that any community hav- 
ing ten families or more shall establish a place for prayers. 
They shall either buy or hire a house for that purpose 
so that they may not interrupt the prayers even for a 
single day. And we ordain that in those places which 
have twenty families or less a fine shall be imposed on any- 
one who fails to come to public prayers in the’ morning or 
evening unless he is prevented by some valid reason. 

Moreover we ordain that they should take heed in the 
synagogue that no one lift his hand against his neighbor 
and that each son of Israel beware lest his heart be exalted 
to smite and to insult his neighbor. Therefore we ordain 
that if any Jew strike his neighbor in the Synagogue or 
in a place fixed for prayer, whether he strike him in the 
face or hit him with his fist, or catch him by the hair of 

t Ibid. 

a> Deut. 14713. 

thd 0. Othasa: 

4 Berakot 6a. 

5 Comp. Berakot 8a. 

6 Shulhan Aruk, Orah Hayyim 55.1. 

7 Gittin 38b. (In our texts the story is told of R. Eliezer). 


356 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


his head or of his beard, or draw a weapon in the Synagogue 
wounding his neighbor in the hand or in any other part 
of the body,* he shall pay for each time he assaulted him 
two hundred maravedis, one half of which shall be given to 
the Talmud Torah Fund and the other half shall be dis- 
tributed among the poor as charity, or in such a way as 
the judges shall designate. If he wounded. his neighbor 
with a knife,a stone, or any other implement that can cause 
death, he shall pay in each instance three hundred mara- 
vedis, which shall be distributed in the manner described. 
These punishments are to be understood to be only the 
penalties for the profanation of the Synagogue. 


Il. THE ELECTION OF JUDGES AND OTHER OFFICERS 


Whereas the number of scholars has become small, 
and those who are fit to act as judges have become few, 
so that there are only a few Communities in the kingdom 
which have a court of three who are fit to act as judges 
in these times in accordance with Talmudic law; and whereas 
our forefathers were constrained because of this to go be- 
yond the law of the Talmud in their ordinances concerning 
the election of judges, ? and since unless there are authorized 
judges in each city to try claims and complaints and to pu- 
nish transgressors, there will be chaosso that neither men nor 
women will be safe, for the world depends on three things: 
on justice, on truth, and on peace,’ and where there is 
no true Torah, there is no peace; therefore have we ordained 
and agreed that in each community they shall choose judges 
to decide their cases as has been said and the members of the 
community shall accept them as judges. But they shall 
choose the most fit and the most worthy that can be found 
in the locality for the Torah often warns us in regard to this 

* Comp. Takkanah of R. Tam on this subject above, Chapter IV, 
Text A. 

2 Any arrangement for the popular election of judges was of neces- 
sity non-Talmudic. In Palestine the authorization to act as judge 
had to come either from the Patriarch or the Synhedrion; in Babylonia, 
it usually was given by the Resh Galuta although the academies seem 


also to have claimed the right to confer this power. 
8 Abot 1.18, 


CHAPTER XIII 357 


matter therefore do we ordain that any community which 
at present has no judges shall be obliged to assemble in 
the usual meeting place according to the customary an- 
nouncement, within ten days’ from the day when this 
Takkanah is read. In those places where there are judges, 
they shall be obliged to gather within ten days before the 
completion of the term of the incumbent judges, and elect 
new judges for the coming year. They shall follow this 
rule every year so long as this ordinance shall be in force. 
An anathema shall be pronounced binding all those who 
are choosing the judges to consider only what will be pleas- 
ing to ‘Him who dwelleth in Heaven....’’ The electors 
shall choose those who are most worthy and fit in the 
community for this office and the same refers to all other 
officers, such as investigators and treasurers and those 
who look into the public needs and any other officers 
which the Community will choose. As soon as the herem 
has been pronounced they shall begin to discuss the matter 
and if they agree so much the better. If they do not agree 
they shall deliberate for the following three days and no 
one shall leave the meeting except for the purpose of 
eating or drinking or some other essential matter. If they 
do not agree within three days they shall remain for eight 
days, day and night, in that place, none of them leaving 
it except to eat or drink or for some necessary reason as 
described. If they cannot come to any agreement within 
the said time they shall notify the Rabbi of the Court 
who shall select judges, and the community and their 
judges shall be obliged to carry out the order of the Rabbi 
of the Court. This procedure shall be followed in the 
election of judges or of any other officials; and such official 
shall hold his position for the whole year. * 

We further ordain that no officer may appoint any judge 
or any other officer without the consent of the community, 
or the majority thereof, and that the proposed officer 
must be mentioned by name (before the electorate). Any 


* For a similar procedure see the responsum of R. Meir b. 
Baruch, quoted in Res. Maim. Kinyan 27, 


358 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


election held in any other way than that prescribed is 
hereby declared void. 


DUTIES AND POWERS OF JUDGES 


We further ordain that whoever is appointed in each 
community shall have the power as long as this Takkanah 
is in effect, to judge any dispute, contentions or quarrels 
which may arise between man and man, according to 
Talmudic law. They shall have the power of imposing 
fines and punishment with the consent of the Rabbi and 
three of the most worthy of the “Best Men”’ of the city. 7? 
They shall however keep in mind the privilege granted 
by our lord, the King, to the said Rabbi of the Court, 
Don Abraham. Moreover anyone who feels himself too 
severly dealt with may appeal to the said Rabbi for redress. 


CUALIFICATION OF JUDGES 


We further ordain that the judges of the community must 
not be related to each other? 


s")0 ¢-enee 10 6) 2 6,.% Th 25k eee eee 


RULES OF PROCEDURE 


We further ordain that the judges shall fix a place for 
trying cases three days in the week, and that they shall 
observe the rules concerning judges, that they shall compel 
the defendant to come before them and do justice to the 
plaintiff. The litigants shall be obliged to come on the 
summons of the judges; and should either fail to appear 
he shall pay to the Charity Fund for the first offense a 
gold piece, for the second offense three gold pieces, and for 
the third offense ten gold pieces, beside such punishment 
as the judges may inflict on him. 


CASES WHERE JUDGES ARE LITIGANTS 


We further ordain that if any Jew or Jewess have a 
complaint against any judge or any judge has a case against 


* This would establish a court of seven in criminal cases. Courts 
of seven were not otherwise unknown in Jewisn law, see Sanhedrin 11.1. 
See also above p. 156, note 2, 

2 Cf. Jer. Sanhedrin 21c. 


CHAPTER XIII 359 


any member of the community, that judge shall be obliged 
to appear with his opposing litigant before one of the judges, 
his colleagues. If there is no other judge in the Community, 
the Community shall be obliged to provide for them 
one or more judges within three days to try the case. 
All the parties shall be obliged to carry out the orders of 
the judge or judges. The same procedure shall be followed 
if the judges are relatives of one of the litigants or friends 
or enemies to one of them in the sense of Talmudic law. 
No judge shall be permitted to try any case in which he, 
persnonally, or one of his relatives is involved unless the 
litigant has accepted him in the prescribed manner.* 


JUDGES TO HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER TAX-LISTS 


We further ordain that no judge shall be empowered to 
interfere by means of his judicial authority in the matter of 
the tax-lists or in the distribution of the taxes, but he may 
try cases arising among the members of the community 
in regard to taxes. 

SPECIAL JUDGES 


We ordain that if a Community feel that they do not 
want to entrust the differences arising among them to 
their judges, and there are differences among them requiring 
the attention of another judge, and they petition the Rabbi 
of the Court to send them judges, declaring that to. be the 
desire of the majority, counting both by persons and by 
wealth, and if it appear to the Rabbi to be an emergency 
which if not met will result in harm to the community, 
he shall choose a God-fearing man, for the time for which 
the Community request him, and the Community shall 
be obliged to accept his decisions. But if the majority 
of the community do not make such a petition to the 
Rabbi of the Court, he shall not send any judge against 
the will of the Community. 


APPEALS 


Regarding appeals, every judge shall be obliged to 
grant an appeal to the Rabbi of the Court within reasonable 
t See Sanhedrin 3.2. 


360 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


time to the ‘party demanding it. The appellant shall 
give guarantees that he will cover the expenses incurred 
and shall take an oath that he makes the appeal because 
he feels himself misjudged, and not merely to delay the 
execution of justice. 


WRITTEN BRIEFS 

Since if one of the litigants were permitted to write down 
his grievance and bring them to Court, he would probably 
write more than is neccessary, perhaps even indulging 
in insults, which would result in more experises and dis- 
putes, and whereas those who instruct others to plead in 
certain ways are included under the rule that he who 
teaches another what to plead injures the community and 
he who teaches them to plead falsely is a sinner,' therefore 
have we decreed that no litigant shall submit written briefs 
to the Court without having received permission from 
the local judge. Even in cases in which a brief is per- 
mitted it must be in keeping with propriety, without injuri- 
ous words or insults against anyone, and must be signed by 
the person who drew it up, and the one presenting the 
brief shall state under oath that it is the signature of the 
person who drew it up and that no one else drew it up 
for him. Any brief presented in any other way will not 
be accepted by the judge. We further ordain that no one 
shall give a litigant any arguments or causes to plead, 
unless he is given permission in writing by the Court to 
do so. Whoever will without permission of the Court, 
help a litigant who is not a relative of his, with argu- 
ments, shall lose his stipend from the Talmud Torah 
Fund if he is a scholar; and if the pleadings suggested 
were false, he shall be proclaimed an evil counsellor. If 
he is a man who does not receive any stipend ‘he shall be 
fined as much as appear just to the Court and to the Rabbi. 


TAKING TESTIMONY AGAINST JUDGES. 
Every communal scribe shall be obliged to record and 
take the evidence which anyone may give against the 


* Compare Abot 1.8. See especially commentary of Maimonides, 
and also Ketubot 52b, 86a. 


CHAPTER XIII 361 


dayyan or against anyone else who is not involved in the 
suit which is pending before the dayyan (?) between the 
day when the suit is brought and the third day following 
including the whole of the latter, and if the defendant 
is not willing to make a reply within the given time, the 
suit is to be decided in favor of the plaintiff as not contested 
and he should write in the record that the defendant was 
not willing to make any reply, and hence he shall be ob- 
liged to summon the dayyan or the party against whom he 
the said evidence has been given, and he shall have another 
witness with him on each of the said three days. If the 
scribe disregard the foregoing he shall pav as a fine twenty 
maravedis for each time he disregards it. 


BODILY APPREHENSION. 


We ordain that no judge shall order a Jew or Jewess 
to be seized bodily, except by order in writing signed by 
himself and witnesses; and that when the crime for which 
the person is apprehended is not defamation or a capital 
crime, the reason shall be stated in the writ. 


SERVING A WRIT 


We further ordain that if anyone obtains a writ from the 
Rabbi of the Court and does not present it to the opposing 
party within fifty days in the presence of witnesses, or 
place it in front of his door in the presence of one of the 
adult members of the family or in the Synagogue at the 
morning prayers in the presence of these who are praying 
he shall no longer be permitted to serve it or make any 
use of it, and it shall cease to have any value. 


III. DEFAMATIONS! 


No Jew or Jewess shall bring his or her neighbor whether 
a Jew or Jewess before any judge, ecclesiastic or secular, 
who is not of our faith, although such a judge should decide 
in accordance with the law of Israel, unless it be a matter 


t Compare the Takkanah of R. Tam above p. 153. 


362 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


of payment of taxes or imposts or coinage or other rights 
of our lord, the King, or of our lady, the Queen, or the 
money or rights of the Church or of a lord or lady of a 
place. Whoever transgresses this law is to be declared 
anathema and excommunicated, and no one shall have 
any dealings with him; he shall not be buried among Jews, 
his bread shall be like the bread of a Samaritan, his wine 
shall be considered like that of libations to idols. For 
each transgression he shall pay 1000 maravedis to the Jew 
who suffered by the defamation or to whomever the Rabbi 
of the Court will order that it should be paid. But if any 
Jew refuses to come toa Jewish Court after being summoned 
three times, the Rabbi and the Judges of the Community 
may give the plaintiff permission to apply for redress to 
the Gentile Courts. 


Any Jew or Jewess defaming another Jew or Jewess 
in such a way that harm may result to the Jew or Jewess, 
even though no Gentile is present, shall be fined for each 
time’ he or she used defamatory language, 100 maravedis, 
(half to be paid to charity and half to whomever the judges 
designate), and shall be imprisoned for ten days. If any | 
harm result from the defamation, the guilty one shall be 
compelled to pay in addition to the above, all the damages 
that have been suffered because of the defamation .If 
the defamatory speech was made in the presence of Gentiles 
the punishment is imprisonment for twenty days and a 
fine of 200 maravedis. If any harm result in this case the 
defamer shall be compelled in addition to undergoing the 
said punishments, to make recompense for all damage 
suffered through the defamation and he shall be excom- 
municated for ten days. If any bodily harm results to 
the defamed because of the words of the defamer, the 
offender shall receive corporal punishment to the extent 
ordered by the Rabbi. 


If any Jew or Jewess is alleged to have caused the ap- 
prehension of another or the seizure of his property by 
some Gentile man or woman, but the matter is not sub- 
stantiated by witnesses being merely supported by the 


CHAPTER XIII 363 


weight of circumstantial evidence,' the judge shall have 
the duty with the counsel of the Rabbi, to order the de- 
famer apprehended and punished bodily in accordance 
with what seems proper to the scholars so far as they 
may (legally). 

If the alleged defamation is confirmed by one witnesses 
as well as incriminating circumstances, or if he confesses 
to it, there shall be branded on his brow the word Malshin.? 


If the crime is proven through the testimony of two 
witneseses, the defamed shall receive for the first offense 
one hundred lashes, and be driven from the city in ac- 
cordance with the decision of the Rabbi and the judges 
and the leaders of the city above-mentioned. If he is 
guilty of a third offense, as established by the testimony 
of two proper witnesses, the Rabbi of the Court may 
in accordance with Jewish law, order his death through the 
judiciary of our lord, the King. 


If he cannot be put to death, or branded on the brow, 
or flogged in the above-mentioned manner, they shall de- 
-nounce him in every place as an informer and a defamer 
so that all Jews may keep aloof from him. He shall be 
declared in all Israel as the ‘‘Man of Belial, the man of 
blood”, no one shall permit him to marry his daughter nor 
shall he be accepted in the Congregation of Israel for any 
religious matter so Jong as he resists the execution of justice 
as here ordained. 


This punishment shall not apply to one who gives in- 
formation to our lord, the King, for his benefit even though 
that bring harm on some Jew. Such a one is not to be 
called either a defamer or an informer since it is the duty 
of all Jews to look after the service of the King. 

If however the informer of the King makes false accusa- 
tions against another Jew, he is to be punished severely 
because he lied to the King, and he is a false witness and 


* For the acceptance of circumstantial evidence see Takkanot 
ascribed to R. Tamabove p. 178. . 3a 

2 The Jews in Spain seem to have taken over from their neighbors 
the use of cruel and unusual punishments, see Res. Asheri 17.1. 


364 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


a defamer. For this reason every possible punishment 
should be inflicted upon him. 


APPEAL TO JEWISH COURTS FOR SAFETY 


If any Jew or Jewess demands from any judge or judges 
of the Communities that he set a truce between him and 
any other Jew or Jewess, one or many, the judge or judges 
shall be obliged to compel the person or persons to grant 
the truce in order to put a temporary end to the quarrels. 
Each party shall be expected to keep the agreement and 
whoever breaks it shall be liable for suit according to the 
laws of the kingdom with the advice of the Rabbi. If 
the judge or judges refuse to interfere in the matter, the 
petitioner shall have the right to proceed before the Gentile 
courts. 


FORCED BETROTHALS OR MARRIAGES 


No one shall have the right to use a writing from our 
lord, the King, or our lady, the Queen, or any other lord 
or lady, or any other person, whether by persuasion or 
intimidation, to compel a Jewess to accept a Jew, or to 
compel a Jew to acept a Jewess, in betrothal or marriage. 
Whoever transgresses this ordinance shall be declared 
anathema and excommunicate, his bread the bread of 
Samaritans, and his wine the wine of libations, he shall 
not be buried among Jews, and he shall pay a fine of five © 
thousand maravedis according to the order of the Rabbi 
of the Court. 


Whereas it happens at times that some enter the houses 
of Jews perforce with the help of Gentiles and compel 
daughters of Israel to accept money or valuables as Kid- 
dushin, or they force a ring on a woman’s finger, and there 
thus arise cases of doubtful marriage, and whereas all of 
this represents a laxity in the matter of marriage, and there 
has always been an ordinance among the Castilian com- 
munities in regard to this, therefore do we ordain that no 
marriage shall be performed except in the presence of ten 


CHAPTER XIII 365 


adult Israelites,t one of them being a relative of the bride. 
If the father or the brother of the bride is in the neighborhood 
they must be present to give their consent. The minister 
of the. Congregation must recite the benedictions of the 
marriage. Whoever will transgress this law, shall be de- 
clared anathema and excommunicate and incapacitated 
to act as witness. He shall receive one hundred lashes 
and pay a fine of ten thousand maravedi as the Rabbi of 
the Court will order. 

No one is permitted to act as a witness to a marriage 
that is not performed in accordance with the above- 
mentioned ordinance, even though the bride has be- 
come engaged to the man with the consent of her father. 
If anyone knowing the intentions of the bridegroom acts 
as witness in violation of this ordinance, and his guilt be 
made certain, he shail be punished in the same way as the 
bridegroom himself. 


INTIMIDATION OF JUDGES 


No Jew or Jewess shall be permitted to bring a Gentile 
man or woman in order to threaten or intimidate a judge, ? 
an investigator or any other officer of the Jewish community. 
If a Gentile man or woman threatens a Jewish community 
on behalf of any Jew or Jewess, who deny that the 
Gentile came at their request, it shall be the duty of the 
Jew or Jewess to see to it that the Gentile abandon his 
threat in such a way that no harm may befall any individual 
or the Community. If he refuses to obey and prevent the 
Gentile from carrying out his threat and draws any ad- 
vantage from thesaid threat or intimidation on the part of the 
Gentile, it shall be looked upon as if proven by two witnesses 
that he brought the Gentile to help him. If the Community 
orany member of it has to undertake any expenditure because 
of the threat, the judges acting on the advice of the. 
Rabbi, may take of the property of the transgressor and 
give it to whomever they please. If the Gentiles are in- 


t See pp. 302 and 307. 
2 Compare Takkanah of R. Tam, p. 153. 


366 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


fluential persons and prevent the execution of justice 
against the transgressor, the judges of the locality shall 
be obliged to bring the matter to the attention of the 
Rabbi of the Court so that he may see that justice is done. 
If, however, the person on whose account the Gentile in- 
terfered requests the Gentile to desist, he shall be liable 
to no punishment. 


THE SALE OF WINE 


Any Jew or Jewess who makes wine of Gentiles' in such 
manner that it may be used for Jewish custom shall pay all 
the taxes, duties and imposts that are laid on the wine 
of any Jew. Moreover no Jew may give the Gentile any 
information which will lead him to bring any pressure 
whether by threat or intimidation on the Jew. Whoever 
transgresses this ordinance is to be considered as defamer 
and a malshin, and he shall be subject to all the rules which 
the Community may make in regard to the preparation 
of the wine of Gentiles. 

Every community of ten families or more shall establish 
a tavern where kasher wine may be obtained both for 
themselves and for travellers. As for those communities 
which already have ordinances providing for men to be 
in charge of the wine sale, they should follow their ordi- 
nances. As for those which do not have such ordinances 
we ordain that within eight days after this Takkanah is 
read to them, they shall call a meeting by announcement 
in the place of prayer, and they shall make pcovision for 
one or more men to be in charge of the wine sale and the 
manner in which the office shall be connected. If they 
cannot agree within three days, they shall appoint one man 
from the class of wine sellers and another for the class of 
of wine buyers. These shall declare under oath that they 
will loyally see to it that the wine is sold in accordance 
with the custom of the place and at the price at which it 


* The expression use here, ‘He who purifies Gentile wine”’ is 
taken froin the mtshna, Aboda Zara 4.8. It means “ preparing the wine 
of Gentiles in such a way that Jews may use it’’. I do not quite 
follow either Gonzalez’s or Kayserling’s interpretation of this passage. 


CHAPTER XIII 367 


is sold to Christians adding to that the amount paid in 
taxes for the Talmud Torah Fund. If they see that the Jew- 
ish wine involves greater expenditures that the Christian 
wine, they shall allow in just that measure the price of 
the Jewish wine to be raised. They shall declare under 
oath that they will carry out their duties with no personal 
interest and that if there will be need of a third party 
to decide between them they will take one and act accord- 
ing to his decision. This regulation they shall observe 
each year during the duration of this Takkanah. 

No person of the children of Israel shall havethe right 
to avail himself of any letter of grace or privilege or other 
order whether written or oral of our lord, the King, or our 
lady, the Queen, of any other lord or lady, to have himself 
appointed Rabbi or to obtain any agreement or emolument 
from any of the communities,! or to be appointed Clerk, 
or Shohet or minister or teacher or messenger of the Court; 

or to obtain any other office in the gift of the communities, 

without the consent of the communites or the community 
_ which the office is to be held. Nor may he win the agreement 
of the communities or the appointment through threats 
or intimidation by Gentiles or any one Gentile. Whoever 
transgresses this ordinance shall be declared anathema and 
excommunicated. 

This rule shall not apply to our worthy Rabbi, Don Abra- 
ham, because it is the desire of the communities that he 
should be the highest judge and he accepted the position 
at the instance of the Rabbis and at the call of the Communi- 
ties. Whoever is at present in possession of such a letter 
of grace, shall present it to the Rabbi of the Court for 
examination within the next six months so that those of 
them which can be executed should be carried out. During 
these six months if he desires to carry out the functions of 
his office by the authority of the letter of the King he may 
do so. His salary shall be determined by the said Rabbi 
of the Court. 

Whereas there are some who appoint officials like the Clerk 
and the Shohet without the consent of the Communities, 

t See above p. 154. 


368 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


we ordain that no one so appointed shall have the right to 
execute the duties of his office without the permission of 
the Community or the majority of it. 

No Jew may engage a Christian servant permanently 
in his home whether with pay or without pay. For serious 
scandals have arisen as a result of this practice and in 
ancient times there was an ordinance against it. 


IV. TAXES AND SERVICE 


No Jew or Jewess shall obtain any letter from the King, 
or Queen or any lord or lady or any other influential person 
by which he or she may be freed paying the taxes which 
the Communities may impose. Neither shall anyone 
try to gain any confirmation of such privilege nor shall any- 
one request anyone who does not belong to our faith, to 
obtain such a privilege for him or her whether by persuasion 
or intimidation. Neither shall one avail oneself of such 
an offer on the part of anyone, nor may such an offer 
be accepted by anyone, whether an individual or a communi- 
ty. In general no one shall take advantage of any letter 
obtained in the above manner to free himself from taxes, 
imposts, loans or any other demands which our lord, the 
King, may make on the Communities. 

In the case of taxes levied upon separate classes or groups 
of Jews, the same rules are to apply as in the case of ordin- 
ary taxes, unless the individual under consideration was 
exempted at the time of the levying of the tax. If any 
community farms out its taxes, the tax-farmer cannot free 
anyone from payment of taxes who was not exempt at the 
time of the farming of the tax. 

If any community makes an agreement with one to re- 
duce his taxes because of intimidation or fear or because 
of an exemption-decree, the agreement is null and void, 
and if any attempt to avoid payment after the Rabbi decides 
that it shall be made, the person involved is to be declared 
anathema and excommunicate. 

Any written documents in regard to this matter must 
be shown to the Rabbi of the Court within six months 
so that he may act on them as he sees fit. 


CHAPTER VIII 369 


Whereas Don Meir Alguades, of sainted memory, was 
for many years a defender of his people, it is proper to show 
appreciation of his services, and not to appear ungrateful 
and whereas in the ordinances which were passed both 
before and after the said R. Meir became the chief judge, 
he and his descendants were granted exemption from all 
the taxes which the Community might have to pay, and 
whereas that privilege is still in force, and further whereas, 
his widow, Donna Bathsheba, is a virtuous woman and has 
lived so as to honor his memory, and aside from 
that, the wife of a scholar is even after his death to be 
accorded some of the privileges due a scholar,! and whereas 
his daughter, Donna Luna, the widow of the worthy Don 
Meir Alfachar, is a virtuous woman; therefore we ordain 
that neither of these widows shall be compelled to pay 
taxes by any community or by any individual in the Com- 
muity, nor shall they be compelled to give any pledge 
for such payments; the aforementioned Rabbi of the Court 
Don Abraham, will decide what their status is to be. 

If any Community- feels itself aggrieved in the matter 
of the division of the taxes, that commuity shall send a 
mission to the Rabbi of the Court, who will take counsel 
in regard to the matters with two other Rabbis of his choice 
and if he finds that the grievances as demonstrated by the 
mission are just, he shall see that they are redressed. 


RIGHT OF REDRESS FOR INDIVIDUALS 


Whereas certain communities have made very rigid ordi- 
nances providing that all the expenses and taxes of the 
Community should be distributed among all the inhabitants 
and that everyone without exception should be obliged 
to pay and no one is permitted to enjoy his right 
to be free from taxes and as the tax-assessors often 
cause serious and evident wrongs, therefore we ordain 
that henceforth no such ordinance shall be made; and in 
regard to those already made, we ordain that a general 
meeting be held of all the members of the Community in 


t Aboda Zara 39a. 


370 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


accordance with the custom, so that they may release the 
herem (repeal the ordinance) and be free to make such or- 
dinance in regard to exemption from taxes as the Rabbi 
of the city may suggest, or if here should not be any in that 
city, according to the suggestion of the Rabbi of the nearest 
city. 

No Community shall henceforth have the right to for- 
bid any individual to make known such grievances as he 
may have against it. If the Community and the indi- 
vidual come to an agreement to lay their differences before 
a judge of the city or of the neighborhood, the matter shall 
so be settled. If, however, they cannot agree on a judge of 
the city or the neighborhood, the matter shall be referred to 
the Rabbi of the Court. The said Rabbi shall settle the 
differences and may remove the tax-assessor and order 
another appointed in his place who will see to it that the 
agreements are observed. But since great harm may re- 
sult to the communities if all those feeling themselves ag- 
grieved should withhold their payments of taxes, therefore 
it is ordained that each man must pay his share in accor- 
dance with the tax assessment, but that if the judge finds 
that one has a just grievance he shall order the restitution 
of the surplus or it may be used in the payment of other 
taxes than those assessed against him in the first list. 

Any Jew or Jewess, claiming exemption from taxes be- 
cause of the alleged privileges granted to the communities 
of Valderas and Badajoz, or because of an alleged privilege 
granted in regard to the Jews of Astorga by the Church 
and Bishop of that city, any Jew or Jewess claiming ex- 
emption from taxes because of these privileges, whether they 
be inhabitants of those communities or not, shall be ob- 
liged to present proof of their privileges to the Rabbi of 
the Court or his agent; otherwise the privilege shall be 
considered void and they shall be considered liable to pay 
in the same fashion as any other of the people. But those 
who have made agreements with the Communities because 
at the time their privileges were in doubt, shall pay in 
accordance with the agreements so long as they are in 
force. 


CHAPTER XIII 371 


WIDOWS AND ORPHANS. 


Any widow, or male or female orphan who is not married, 
and possesses less than four hundred maravedi shall be 
exempt from payment of taxes. If any of them have more 
than the said amount, only the surplus over that sum shall 
be taxed. The same rule shall apply to the lame and the 
crippled. 


TAXES ON MEAT AND WINE 


Every community shall henceforth establish the custom 
of imposing taxes on meat and wine. Every community 
is authorized to make such ordinances in accordance with 
their custom and fix definite rates. If they do not agree 
on the imposts within thirty days from the day of their 
meeting, they shall send representatives to the Rabbi of 
the Court, who will ordain how the Community shall act 
in regard to the taxes, and they must act in accordance 
with his orders. In places where no tax on wine has yet 
been established, they shall not be obliged to impose one if 
the majority of the people, counting both by numbers and 
by wealth, are opposed to it. 


TAX EVADERS 


A stringent herem of ten maledictions shall be pronounced 
in all the communities on the Sabbath between Rosh Ha- 
Shanah and Yom Kippur of each year,’ at the morning 
prayer, in the presence of all those who are praying, while 
the Torah is in the Ark, against any Jew who will attempt 
to evade the payment of taxes, or who will help others to 
evade taxes which they are legally obliged to pay. 


ANNOUNCEMENT OF COMMUNITY MEETINGS 


In many Communities there are officers like investigators 
and community leaders who publish the announcemnts 


t Compare the statement in Maharil (Laws of Penitence) that R. 
Jacob Molin was very much pained when a Jew announced a herem 
in the synagogue during the ten days between Rosh Ha-Shanah and Yom 
Kippur. 


372 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


in such an astute manner that the public meeting is only 
sparcely attended, only those being invited whom they 
choose, and they ordain whatever they please to ordain, 
As a result of this practice many scandals have arisen, and 
moreover this is contrary to the law of the Talmud which 
provides that an ordinance is not binding unless accepted 
by the whole or the majority of a community.’ We, 
therefore ordain that any ordinance passed in the aforesaid 
manner shall be void. If it be an ordinance levying taxes 
there must be present a majority of the tax-payers of the 
past three tax lists, nearest the time of the ordinance, 
as well as a majority by wealth of those who would pay 
the proposed tax. But whereas the Communities have 
the custom of making their ordinances by public announce- 
ment and it will be difficult for them to wait until the whole 
or the larger part of the Community gather, and as at 
times matters require an immediate solution and permit 
of no dealay, therefore we ordain: 1. That in regard to 
such things as can cause no harm to the community if 
action on them is delayed till the Sabbath, no ordinance 
may be made except in the manner mentioned above. And 
in all places where public prayers are. held, they shall 
announce publicly when the Torah is in the ark, to as many 
as are gathered into the Synagogue or Synagogues, that 
a gathering will be held in such and such a place and such 
and such ordinances will be discussed, so that each man may 
take it to his heart and think of the proposed meeting and 
guard his rights, or waive them freely. Those who are 
absent from the meeting will then learn what was said, 
and they must accept whatever is ordained by those present 
even if they were nota majority. 2. If it isa matter which 
cannot be delayed till the following Sabbath, but can wait 
till the next Monday or Thursday, they shall make announce- 
ment in the abovementioned manner on one of those days, 
and if notice of the proposed meeting was brought to those 
present on those days, all that is ordained at the meeting 
shall be valid although no announcement was made on 


* See above p. 50. 


CHAPTER XIII 373 


the Sabbath. 3. If it is an urgent matter that cannot 
wait for the following Monday or Thursday, they shall 
announce the meeting at the regular morning or evening 
service. 4. If it is so urgent a matter that it cannot be 
delayed until announcement is made at the services, the 
Clerk of the Community shall go the houses of the majority 
of the members of the Community and of the taxpayers 
and inform them that the said meeting must take place. 
They shall wait with the discussion until everyone in the 
Community shall have had time to arrive at the place of 
the meeting. They may then discuss that it is wanted 
to ordain and whatever they ordain is valid. Some Com- 
munities have an ordinance providing that no act is valid 
unless passed by the majority of the Community; they 
shall act in accordance with their custom. But those 
communities which have elected officers to look after the 
welfare of the Communities shall act in accordance with 
this —Takkanah. 

No one shall be permitted to pronounce any herem until 
the subject has been deliberated upon and discussed so 
that one may be certain that the matter is being done with 
the consent of the whole or a majority of the Community. 


V. REGARDING CLOTHING ! 


No woman except those unmarried or a bride in the 
first year of her marriage, shall wear costly dresses of 
gold-cloth, or olive colored material or fine linen or silk, 
or of fine wool. Neither shall they wear on their dresses 
trimmings of velvet or brocade or olive-colored cloth. Nor 
shall they wear a golden brooch nor one of pearls, nor a 
string of pearls on the forehead, nor dresses with trails on 
the ground more than one third of a vara in measure, nor 
_ fringed Moorish garments, nor coats with high collars, 
nor cloth of a high reddish color, nor a skirt of bermeta 
thread, except as for the skirt and stockings, nor shall they 
make wide sleeves on the Moorish garments of more than 


t Compare similar Takkanot in Italy above p. 285, in Germany 
p. 228. 


374 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


two palms in width, but they may wear jewelry like 
silver brooches and silver belts provided that there is 
not more than four ounces of silver on any of them. 

No son of Israel of the age of fifteen or more shall wear 
any cloak of gold-thread, olive colored material or silk, 
or any cloak trimmed with gold or olive-colored material 
or silk, nor a cloak with rich trimmings nor with trimmings 
of olive colored or gold cloth. 

This prohibition does not include the clothers worn at a 
time of festivity or at the reception of a lord or a lady, 
nor at balls or similar social occasions. 

Because of the diversity of custom among the Communi- 
ties in regard to the wearing apparel, we find it impracticable 
to make a general ordinance which shall provide for all 
the details that ought to be included, and we therefore 
ordain that each Community shall make such ordinances 
on the subject so long as this Ordinance endures, as will 
keep before their minds that we are in Dispersion because 
of our sins, and if they desire to establish more rigorous 
rules than this they have the power to do so. 


DINNERS AND FESTIVITIES 


Whereas at the time of betrothals and weddings and the 
birth of a child and other seasons of rejoicing, many spend 
lavish sums, we agree that every community shall make 
such ordinances on this subject as are compatible with 
its needs and position. Therefore we ordain that from the 
day when this Takkanah will be read in any Community 
having no ordinance dealing with this matter, a meeting 
shall be held within thirty days to adopt ordinances on this 
subject in the spirit described in this Ordinance. 


CONCLUSION. 


We agree that this Takkanah shall be established over 
all the Holy Communities of our lord, the King, and over 
each one of them just as it has been drawn the first day of 
Sivan of this year and for the coming ten years. All the 
communities shall act in accordance with it. Every one 


CHAPTER XIII 375 


of these communities shall similarly act in accordance with 
it from the day on which it is read to them and announced 
until the end of the said ten successive years. No man 
shall raise objections to it either in whole or in part. Who- 
ever transgresses or causes another to transgress or raises 
any objection so as to annul it as a whole or in part shall 
be declared anathema and excommunicate in accordance 
with our judgement since this ordinance was established by 
the authority given the worthy Rabbi Don Abraham. 


ADDITIONAL NOTE A 


TALMUDIC LAW REGARDING COMPETITION 


Perhaps it may be well to summarize here the Talmudic sources whith 
underlie the institutions of the Herem Ha-yishshub. R. Judah b. Ilai, 
(a Tanna of the end of the second century), saint as he was, appears 
to have had little knowledge of business methods. He forbade any mer- 
chant to undersell his neighbor lest he ‘‘accustom the buyers to come 
to him”. (Baba Mezia 4.5.) The majority of the Sages saw nothing 
unfair in such methods of competition. The general opinion of the 
Rabbis was that one ‘‘may open a store next to that of his neighbor 
and the other may not object since the owner may say to him, You 
may do what you will in your property, and I do what I please in my 
property.” The principle of free competition is thus established in 
Tannaitic literature, i. e. for Palestine. 

R. Huna, who lived in Babylonia about the middle of the third century 
differed from the opinion laid down by the majority of the Tannaim 
(Baba Batra 21b). He held that if a man owned and operated a mill 
he might prevent anyone else in his immediate vicinity from beginning 
to operate another mill. The attempt of the succeeding generations of 
the Amoraim to find a Tannaitic basis for the statement of R. Huna, 
cannot be said to have been successful. The distinction between the 
sources adduced to support R. Huna, and the statement of R. Huna, 
is well pointed out by R. Meir Ha-Levi in his commentary to the 
passage (Yad Ramah, ad loc.). Indeed, it must have been the feeling 
that the stifling of competition was unjust that led the vast majority 
of the codifiers to decide against R. Huna. (See Bet Yosef, Hoshen 
Mishpat, 156). 

It is not unlikely that conditions in Babylonia, or at least in Sura, were 
such that R. Huna’s position was justified by fact if not by precedent. 
This becomes even more probable when we consider the words of R. 
Huna’s namesake, who lived several generations later, R. Huna b. 
R. Joshua, who lays down the rule that while one may not prevent one’s 
neighbor from competing with one, one may object to competition by 
an immigrant from another city. We have in this statement a principle 
that approaches the herem ha-yishshub in acting as a preventive measure 
against people from other towns but not against people of the same city. 
Rashi finds in this statement of the second R. Huna the basis for the 
institution of the herem ha-yishshub. (See RMR 77, but comp. com- 
mentary loc. cit.) 


The extent to which such laws reflect local conditions can be seen 
from the difficulty which R. Joseph ibn Migas found in comprehending 
the law. Harking back to the point of view of the Palestinian Tannaim 


ADDITIONAL NOT 377 


of the second century, he does not see why one should take into considera- 
tion only feelings of the merchant and not that of the consumer. If 
the traders undersell one another they may be harming one another, 
but the consuming public reap the advantage of lower prices. Why, he 
asks, should the law defend the rights of the selling class rather than 
that of the buying class? He decided therefore that if new-comers may 
be prevented from selling their wares in competition with established 
houses, only when the newcomers do not offer inducements to the buyers, 
but where the wares of the newcomers is superior to that of the older 
firms, or is sold at a lower price, the Sages will not prevent them from 
selling their wares. For the law must defend the rights of the buyers 
as well as that of the sellers. If, however, trade in entirely in Jewish 
hands R. Joseph ibn Migas holds that it is forbidden for a newcomer 
to undersell a fellow-Jew, and therefore all competition is prohibited. 
In this view he is followed by R. Meir ha-Levi (see commentaries of 
Ibn Migas and R. Meir Ha-Levi ad loc.). 

On the other hand, the French and German commentators found no 
difficulty here at all. R. Eliezer b. Joel Ha-Levi (Mordecai, Baba Batra 
II. 516) decides with R. Huna, the elder, that all competition between 
Jews is forbidden. But, he inadvertently, reveals his true reason for 
the defense of the seller. ‘‘If the Gentile cannot come to the house of 
R. except by passing the house of S. (the newcomer) then R. (the original 
shopkeeper) may object in accordance with the view of R. Huna.’’ 


B. THE LEGAL Status oF WoMEN IN GERMAN JEWRY. 


This is one of the cases which illustrates the rule that according 
“to the changes that take place in life, the law changes’. But as Jewish 
law is judge-made rather than statutory, its changes are not as clearly 
defined as they would be by a legislature. The law laid down in the 
Talmud that women are not responsible for damages worked very 
well in Talmudic times. It applied not only to cases‘of assault but as 
Rashi points out also to other cases, This is made evident by the state- 
ment of the Pharisees (Yadaim 4.7) that a master cannot be held res- 
ponsible for the damage done by his slave in setting fire to the field 
of his neighbor. Doubtless the same view would have been held re- 
garding a person’s responsibility for the actions of his wife. And 
since married women were almost as devoid of property rights as 
slaves, there could be no question of their paying out of their own es- 
tates. In a society where women’s commercial transactions were 
limited this might work well. But when the Jewish women in Germany 
became the ‘“‘noble women who engage in trade’ (RMP 958) (See 
also Guedemann I, 230; Raben 115; RMR 57; HOS 250; 254) it was 
obviously impossible to free them from all responsibility which lay 
on others in matters of buying and selling goods. Business could not 
go on if the wife were permitted to buy and refuse to pay, while the 
husband sat carelessly by, denying any responsibility for her acts. 
R. Gershom still maintains the view of the Babylonian Geonim that 


378 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


a woman cannot be brought to Court in a civil suit (Or Zarua, Baba 
Kamma 8.530). He makes the single qualification that if she came 
into the possession of propefty wherein her husband has no rights 
whatever, she may be compelled to pay therefrom. That exception 
is implied in the Talmud, but the case is so rare as to be negligible. 
It remained for R. Eliezer b. Nathan and his grandson, R. Eliezer b. 
Joel Ha-Levi to establish the new principle of women’s responsibility 
‘“Nowadays,’”’ says R. Eliezer the Younger, ‘‘unless women will be 
compelled to come to court and defend themselves (in civil suits like 
men) you will destroy the means of livelihood”’ for those who are com- 
pelled to deal with them, and ultimately their own. He proposes 
that if ‘‘she claims that she destroyed what she received or was ne- 
gligent with it, the husband shall not be held responsible, but if she 
claims that she spent it or used it for her personal needs, I think that 
the husband is responsible.’’ Like his grandfather, he finds support 
for his views in a responsum of R. Kalonymos, perhaps the scholar 
of Lucca , but he admits that the weight of the authority of the Baby- 
lonian Geonim is against him. R. Baruch b. Samuel of Mayence 
suggests another manner of differentiating between the litigation in 
which women are to be held responsible and those in which they are 
to be free. His principle is the same as that of our Takkanah (p. 201, 
$21), namely that while women cannot be held responsible for assault 
since they are freed from that responsibility in the Mishna, they 
may be held for all other obligations. (Mordecai, Baba Kamma 8.111. 
See Cassel, Geonitm Kadmonim 107, and Mueller, Mafteah p. 8-9). 

Another more important theory was that women engaged in trade 
were really agents for their husbands who were therefore responsible 
for them not as husbands for wives but as principals foragents. This 
would amount in practical law to the same principle as that of the 
ordinance and that of R. Baruch b. Samuel. It is ascribed to R. Abra- 
ham b. Nahman (Mordecai, ed. Riva Baba Kamma 8.108-9). 

R. Meir b. Baruch denied the validity of all these theories and strongly 
insisted on the Talmudic law that a woman cannot be brought to court 
or compelled to take an oath while she is married. (RMC 35, Mor- 
decai Baba Kamma 8.99). The force of conditions proved the stronger 
however, and the general view of the German Rabbis is rather with 
his opponents. 

It is interesting to note howa change of conditions made the passage 
in Rabiah quite unintelligible to R. Joseph Colon. He says (Res. 
193) that R. Eliezer could not have had in mind any large claims but 
only those ‘‘which a woman is likely to incur in the household ex- 
penses as the payment for food and similar things”’. 

It may be proper to note here too, that the higher economic status 
of women in Germany and partly in France was the cause of their 
recognition in legal matters. We have seen (above p. 178) that women 
were admitted as witnesses in some cases. We hear of one Rabbi 
who allowed his daughters to be counted as members of the quorum in 


ADDITIONAL NOTES 379 


order to recite the Grace (Tosafot Berakot 45b). Some held that women 
might act as judges (Tosafot Niddah 50a). R. Meir b. Baruch himself 
in a special case, permitted women to be called up to the Torah pub- 
licly (RMP 108). This movement had already been started by the 
laws regulating marriage and divorce which were introduced by R. 
Gershom and re-enforced by communal! ordinances of various kinds. 
They all show an attempt to minimize the legal inferiority of women. 
There can be no doubt that the movement toward ‘‘ women’s rights”’, 
for such it was, had its origin and compelling force largely in the fact that 
women began to occupy a prominent posisition in the economic world. 


C. APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN TALMUTIC LAw. 


We read (Sanhedrin 31b) ‘‘When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he 
said in the name of R. Johanan, ‘If one man summons another to Court 
and one of the litigants says, let us try our case here, and the other says, 
let us get the place of Assembly they must go to the place of Assembly.”’ 
Translated into modern terminology, R. Dimi in the name of R. Johanan 
laid down the rule, that if one of the litigants refused to try his case 
before a local court, but insisted on going before a superior Court, 
then the other must go before the superior Court. R. Eleazar is re- 
ported to have objected to this decision of R. Johanan. He said, ‘‘O 
Master, shall he who sues for one mina, be compelled to waste one 
mina after the other in trying to recover it?’”’ R. Eleazar thought that 
it were better that they should be tried: by the local court. Thus Babli. 

In the Palestinian Talmud, the matter is related somewhat differently, 
We read there (Jer. Sanhedrin 21a), ‘‘There were two men who had a 
litigation in Antioch. One of them said to the other, ‘I will obey 
the decision of R. Johanan’.’’ In other words, he wanted to take the 
case directly to the higher court. R. Johanan refused to hear it, how- 
ever. He held that the case be tried by the local judges, and that if 
they were in doubt they might send to him. But he would not answer 
the litigants directly. ‘“‘R. Eleazar said, If one of the litigants wants 
to try his suit in Tiberias and the other in Sepphoris, we try it in Ti- 
berias.”” The traditions of the two Talmudim are not quite contra- 
dictory for it may well be that R. Johanan who was at first inclined 
to have the suit brought before him, finally felt the force of R. Eleazar’s 
argument in favor of the local courts as given in Babli. The Talmud 
of Jerusalem merely adds that one must try one’s case before the 
local court. If the two courts are as near each other as Sepphoris and 
Tiberias, indeed, the case should come before the higher court. It 
is only when it would necessitate the incurriug of expenses, that R. 
Eleazar denies the rights of the litigant to take the matter to the high- 
est court at once. That this explanation is true can be seen from the 
Babylonian Talmud, where R. Safra is reported to have said in the name 
of R. Johanan, that if two people stand opposed to each other at a trial 
and one says, let us try our case here, and the other says, let us go to the 
house of Assembly, it must be tried in their own city. We are to un- 


380 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN_ THE MIDDLE AGES 


derstand then that Babliand Jerushalmi give each an incomplete story 
which must be supplemented from the other. R. Safra and R. Dimi 
do not contradict each other, but rather R. Safra tells us, what R. 
Dimi omits, that R. Johanan accepted the view of his pupil. There 
is therefore no need of omitting with R. Solomon Luria the words 
‘“‘in the name of R. Johanan”’ in the statement of R. Safra. 


The matter thus far is clear. It became confused, however, when 
Amemar laid down the rule, that one must go to the higher court. It 
is inconceivable that Amemar should have meant that a Babylonian 
defendant might compel another Babylonian to come to some Pales- 
tinian court for trial. That would indeed be an injustice. Amemar 
in all likelihood, merely said that if one of the litigants wanted to go 
before a central Babylonian court such as that of the Exilarch or the 
Academies, his fellow would have to go before those courts rather than 
before the local courts. (His use of the term “yin ma merely reflects the 
fact that he quotes a Palestain source). It is not clear whether R. Ashi 
so understood Amemar’s statement, but he objected to it, because it 
seemed to contradict the view of R. Eleazar. Amemar did not quote 
in support of his statement the view of R..Johanan, since as we have 
seen, R. Johanan had adopted the decision of R. Eleazar. It is not 
clear whether the final decision in the Talmud is an amended statement 
by Amemar himself or the attempt of a later authority to reconcile the 
opposing points of view. The decision is that the plaintiff can compel 
the defendant to go to the higher court but not vice versa. 


The weakness of this decision was plainly seen by the French com- 
mentators. If one were suing a very busy manand insisted on taking 
his case to a distant court, it might well be that the defendant would 
prefer to pay even an unjust claim rather than incur the heavy ex- 
penses and loss of time of a distant trial (Asheri Baba Kamma 112b). 
Even more difficult is the statement of Mar Ukba in the name of Sam- 
uel (Baba Kamma 112b) that a defendant might refuse to answer a 
summons of a local court on the pleas that he would be tried only by 
the Great Beth Din. If Mar Ukba meant the great Beth Din in 
Palestine, his decision would have meant the end of justice in Baby- 
lonia. For every defendant might insist on being tried in Palestine. 
Since only in important cases would it pay the plaintiff to undertake 
the expenditure involved in a distant suit, the defendant would be at 
an advantage. Mar Ukba’s words apply therefore only to Babylonian 
courts of and are directly contradictory to the views set forth as the 
final decision of the Talmud above. The attempts to reconcile the two 
statements by R. Tam and by R. Solomon ibn Adret (ad loc.) are not 
quite acceptable to the later authorities (see Asheri ad loc.). But we 
still do not see why either Mar Ukba or Amemar should give such 
sweeping rights to either party at a litigation. 

While these discussions were going on, time was solving the problems 
and bringing about a common sense decision. A Takkanah was established 


ADDITIONAL NOTES 381 


- (p. 190) which provides that one must stand for trial if summoned 
at home or in the nearest place where there was a regular court. This 
view was enunciated by R. Samson b. Abraham of Sens as being the 
custom of his own city (Or Zarua Baba Kamma 436, Res. Maim. Sho- 
fetim 2), but later it seems to have been understood as binding on all 
the communities (Shilte Ha-Gibborim Sanhedrin III, beg., but comp. 
Or Zarua, loc. cit., where case decided by R. Samson is definitely declared 
to be exceptional. Long before him, in the days of R. Eliezer b. Nathan 
(Raben, Prague 113a), we find it however as the prevalent custom. R. 
Joseph Colon refers to the custom as that of the Germans (Res. 14 
and 15). The Takkanah referred to by R. Meir b. Baruch seems to be 
identical with the one before us. He says, (Mordecai, Sanhedrin 3.707), 
“Thus have I seen in the ordinaace of the communities: If one of the 
litigants wants to send the case to a distant judge, and there is a scholar 
near at hand, and if the judges see that he intends merely to cause his 
opponent unnecessary expense, they should not listen to him (but 
compel him to stand trial in his own city)”. 


We have a decision in this matter from the communities of Worms, 
Speyer and Mayence. It reads, ‘‘If a person sues another and summons 
him before the communities, he may say, I will not be tried outside 
of my city. This is only true however in case of a claim for the payment 
of money. But if the complaint is about matters of assault or denunci- 
ation before the Gentiles, the plaintiff may summon him to appear 
in Court before any of the Communities, (other than their home city)... 
The defendant may then choose from among them the court before 
which he would be tried”. (RMB, p. 319. Compare Ez Hayyim 
po uunp mwon p. 96b.) It is quite natural that a person of influence 
would be so powerful as to overawe the judges of his native community. 
A defendant against such a man might demand a change of venue. 
This would naturally be the case in litigations about assault and de- 
nunciation. Hence the distinction. Several precedents are mentioned 
by R. Samuel b. Elhanan (Mordecai Sanhedrin 3 end, note; RMP 546; 
RMB p. 318) in the case where a defendant said to the plaintiff, ‘‘ How 
can I stand trial in your city when you are feared by the judges and 
I will be unable to give my arguments?’ R. Samuel permits the case 
to go before another court and even mentions R. Samson of Sens who 
permitted his son-in-law to decline to answer a suit in his own city 
of Troyes because his opponents were too powerful. 


(The words ov) 39 mupna onyxn “I have found the following 
in the ordinances of R. Gershom” which are printed in RMB before 
this passage, are obviously a copyist’s error. Firstly this is a responsum 
and not a Takkanah, and secondly the authorities are all later by some 
centuries than R. Gershom). 


382 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 


THE ORIGIN OF THE CUSTOM OF INTERRUPTING THE PRAYERS. 


After this volume was in press, I received copies of the two excellent 
works on post-Talmudic Jurisprudence by Rabbi Simhah Asaf of 
Palestine: oD) prt cna and “Nwoonm nonn. ony penyn. Nat- 
turally there are a number of points of contact between those works 
and the present volume which deals with the same period, though from 
a different angle. There are a number of statements in the books which 
will have to be revised in view of the new material made available 
here. Thus the statement (in 07770) prt 'na, p. 27) that the ordinance 
limiting the right of interrupting the prayers, was established by R. 
Tam, is based on the title given the Takkanot of R. Gershom in the 
Prague edition of the Responsa of R. Meir b. Baruch (no. 153). In 
view of the fact that such early authors as R. Meir b. Baruch and R. 
Aaron of Lunel quote the list of Takkanot as R. Gershom's, there can 
be no doubt that it is by him (See, above, pp. 113, 114). 

Again Rabbi Asaf agrees with Aptowitzer in holding that the custom 
of interrupting the prayers was known in Palestine in Talmudic times 
(aD) pYT na p. 26). But that interpretation of the passage in 
the Jerushalmi has been shown above to be erroneous (p. 16, note 1). 
On the other hand, Rabbi Asaf quotes a reference to the custom in 
the work of the Spanish codifier R. Samuel ha-Sardi (thirteenth century 
which escaped my notice, but he is doubtless right in holding that the 
words there given are merely a quotation of the passage in the Ittur 
(referred to above, p. 17) 

Rabbi Asaf also cites a Geonic responsum, froma collection which was 
prepared for publication by the late Professor Halper, dealing with the 
matter of interrupting the prayers. The responsum definitely states 
that the custom was unknown in Babylonia. 


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 


JQR—Jewish Quarterly Review 

REJ—Revue des Etudes Juives 

MGWJ—Monatsschrift fuer Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Juden- 
tums. 

JJLG—Jahrbuch der Juedisch-Literarischen Gesellschaft 

JGJ—Jahrbuch fuer die Geschichte der Juden 

RFL—Mueller, Teshubot Hakme Zarfat ve-Lotir 

HOS—Responsa of R. Hayyim Or Zarua. 

RMP—Responsa of R. Meir b. Baruch, ed. Prague 

RMC—Responsa of R. Meir b. Baruch, ed. Cremona 

RMB—Responsa of R. Meir b. Baruch, ed. Berlin. 

RMR—Responsa of R. Meir b. Baruch, ed. Rabinowitz, Lemberg. 

TRG—Takkanot of R. Gershom. 

Mord.—Mordecat. 

Guedemann—M. Guedemann, Geschichte der Erziehungswesen und 
der Cultur der Abendlaendischen Juden. 





INDEX 


Aaron, R.—of Lunel 114, 117 

Abandonment, 44, 168, 197. 

Abba Saul, 57 

Abigdor Cividal, 313 

Abraham, R., Court Rabbi, 103, 349; 
See also Benveniste, R. Abraham 

Abraham b. Benjamin, 295 

Abraham b. Gamaliel b. Pdahzur, 250 

Abraham b. Judah 289 

Abraham Menahem Port, 313 

Abrahams, I., 39 

Abravanel, Isaac 95 

Abulafia, R. Meir 100. 

Academies 2, 22, 44 

Agriculture 13 

Akiba, R. 44, 68 

Alfachar, Don, 369 

Alfasi, R. Isaac, 68, 100 

Alguades, Don Meir, 369 

Ammi, R., 23, 322 

Ancona, 380 , 

Appeals to higher courts, 55, 67, 359, 
279-381; 

Aptowitzer, 16 

Aragon, 101, 102, 328-347. 

wAsheri, SO, 67, 82; 101, 222, 354. 

Assault, 48, 187, 199, 238, 355, 

Assemblies, limitation on, 88 

Assi, R., 322 

Astorga, 370 

Attorneys, 360 


Badajoz, 370 

Badge, 89 

Baptism, 26 

Barcelona, 101, 336 

Baruch. R., b. Isaac 27, 28, 82, 84. 
Baruch, R., b. Judah 131 

Baruch, R., b. Samuel, 52, 56, 62, 250, 378 
Basula, 300, 307 

Bath, ritual 276 

Bene Batyra, 50 

Benedict, Pope, 86 

Benjamin b. Menahem, 289, 295 
Benjamin b. Moses, 295 

Benveniste, R. Abraham, 103, 349 
Ben Zion of Norzi, 314 

Bequests, 61, 247 

Berliner. A., 40 

Betrothals, 145, 146, 198, 279, 323 
Bezalel Ashkenazi, 62 


Bigamy 94; See Plural Marriage. 

Bing 259 

Bingen, 77 

Black Death, 73, 101 

Blessing, at end of herem, 204 

Bloch, 128 

Blood-letting, 244 

Bologna, 86, 306 

Bonfant, Samuel, 256 

Books 188, 237; censorship of 80, 263 
304; as property, 58, 60. 

Bridegroom, escort of, 61, 240 

Bruell, 72 

Buber, 23 

Burials, 279 


Candia, 82-85 

Capsali, 95, 182, 

Carlebach, 189 

Casali, 309 

Cassu to, 298 

Castile, 102, 384-377 

Catalonia, 102, 344, 346 

Cemetery, 198 

Censorship, 93, see also books, publica- 
tion of. 

Cesano, Menahem, 326 

Cesano, Samuel, 326 

Charity Fund, 91, 264, 358 

Charity, recipients of, exempt from taxa- 
tion, 87 

Chese, 291 

Child marriages, 58 

Church property, 188 

Circumcision, tax on occasion of, 351 

Clothes, imitation of Gentile 235. See 
also Dress. 

Clothing, limitation on expenditure for, 
Blame OL sed Las 

Coin-clipping, 61, 236 

Coins, counterfeit, 72, 261 

Cologne, 42, 52, 75, 254 

Colon, R. Joseph, 26, 29, 78, 95, 117, 
130143291 S20 1OGme one 

Commerce, Jews driven from, 39 

Commercial gatherings, synods in con- 
nection with, 25 

Communities, federation of 21, 35 

Communities, Rhine, 24, 26, 30, 35 

Community, legislative power of, 49; 
meetings of, 103 


386 INDEX 


Competition, 376 


Compulsory Baptism, bull prophibiting, 
90 . . 

Compulsory Divorce, See Divorce, Com- 
pulsory. 

Confession, on deathbed, 98, 324 

Conversions, 30. 

Converts, repentant, 30 

Corfu, 96-98; 316-327 

Cornil, David 326 

Cortes, 340 

Counsellors, ordinance against employing, 
72 

Courts, 6, 60, 117; authority of, 48; 
jurisdiction of, 33; secular, 42, 43, 156, 
256, 351 

Courts of appeal, 67, 359, 379-381; 
prominent rabbis, accepted as, 455 

Courts of seven elders, 168; See also 
Seven Best Men 

Crescas, Solomon, 347 

Crete, See Candia 

Crusades, 37-38, 102 

Customs, Austrian, 26; French, 27; 
German, 27; local differences of, 21 

Cutting hair, 59 


David b. Eliezer, 309 

David b. Kalonymos, 56-59, 63; See also 
David of Muenzberg. 

David of Muenzberg, 61, 74, 273 

David b. Shealtiel, 63, 251 

Denunciation of Jews to Gentiles, 60; 
See also Informers, 

Desertion, See Abandonment. 

Dienemann, 40 

Di Mordo, 97, 326 

Dinti, 326 

Divorce, 24, 75; compulsory, 26, 29, 
48, 182; ordinance against denying 
validity of, 44-46; writ of, 144, 198, 
247 

Documents, forged, 261 

Dower-right, See Ketubah. 

Dowry, collection of, 262; return of, 43, 
58, 163-167 

Dress, 102; modesty in, 323; of Women, 
98; See also Clothing. 


Economic Conditions after the Crusades, 
38 

Education, 247; funds for, 61; 350-354; 
See also Schools 

Eleazar b. Judah, 62. 

Elders of the Community, 131; See also 
Court of Seven Elders 

Eleazar b. Judah, 62, 250 


Eleazar b. Samson, 250 

Elfenbein, Dr. Israel, 128 

Eliezer b. Joel Ha-Levi, 14, 28, 58, 222, 
250; See a.so Rabicah 

Eliezer b. Nathan., 15, 42, 130, 151, 
187, 189 

Eliezer of Orleans, 14 

Epstein, 20 

Eliezer b. Samson, 42, 150 

Eliezer b. Samuel of Metz, 27, 51, 62 

Elhanan b. Menahem, 289 

Elijah b. Judah, 289, 295 

Engagements, see Betrothals 

Epstein, 20 

Estori Farhi, 17. 

Erfurt, 76 

Eugene, Pope, 92 

Excommunication, 2, 45, 602, 63, 64; 
See also Herem 

Exilarchs, 22 

Expulsion, from France, 56, 72 

Extravagance in dress, See Clothing, 
limitation on expenditure for 

Ezra ,s 22 


Families, disruption of, because of aban- 
donment, 44 

Fastdays, games of chance permitted 
on, 88, 291 

Ferrara, 86, 92, 304, 306 

Festivities, limitation on expenditures 
for, 60, 103, 143, 244, 374 

Finci, Isaac b. Moses, 289 

Finci, Solomon, b. Moses, 289, 295 

Fines, 93, 97, 200, 264, 293, 309, 355, 
356, 365 

First Crusade, See Crusades. 

Florence, 90, 297 

Forli, 87, 281, 288, 289 

France, customs of, 57, 78 

Frankfort, 63, 78, 79, 257-264 

Freimann, 21 

Freidburg, 258, 259, 264 

Friedmann, 17 

Fulda, 258 


Gamaliel, R., 355 

Gambling, 60, 88, 242, 191 

Gaon, Abraham 326 

Gaonate, 100 

Gatherings on streets, 293 

Gentiles, ordinance against defrauding, 
280 

Geonim, 22, 68; See also Nahshon, Hai, 
Saadia, Sherira 

Gerace, Bishop of, 90 

Gershom, 5, 13, 19, 20, 38, 41, 50, 51, 
78, 81, 84, 93, 111-138 142, 144, 


INDEX 387 


185, 201, 305, 379 
Get, See Divorce, writ of 
Ghettoes, 31 
Ginzberg, L., 17, 67, 130, 184 
Ginzburg, city of, 258, 259 
Glassberg, 21 
Gordon, J. L., 45 
Gracianowe Ana Ll. s., SOL. 
Gregory IX, Pope, 388 
Gross, 43, 45, 142 
Guedemann, 129, 189 


Haber, title of, 79, 260 

Hat, R.,'3;.99, 131 

Halberstam, 281, 300 

Halakot Gedolot, 100 

Halizah, 27, 57, 61, 74, 145, 245-247, 
PAY ahs 

Hamm, 259 

Hayyim Or Zarua, 27, 29, 47, 51, 55, 
72, 93, 152, 189 

Hayyim b. Eliezer, 309 

Hayyim Paltiel, 198. 

Hazzan, 60, 131; right of, 244, 243 

Hefetz, Book of, 237 

Heirlooms, 58 

Herem, 8, 26, 27, 46, 48, 51, 64, 80, 87, 
117, 130, 145, 197, 242, 357; pronunci- 
ation of, in case of loss, 33; release of, 
145 

Herem Beth Din, 6, 20, 33, 48, 127, 182, 
185 

Herem Ha-Ikkul, 9, 10 

Herem Ha-Yishshub, 10, 20, 50 

Hezekiah b. Reuben, 250 

Hillel, 25, 50 

Hirschfeld, H., 218 

Honesty, in dealing with Gentiles, en- 
joined 261 

Horovitz, Dr. 257 

Hist. alleged desecration of, 337 

Huna, R. 376 

Huppah, 321 


Ibn Adret, R. Solomon, 16, 17, 28, 29, 
101130; 142; 165, 308 

Ibn Ezra, 100 

Ibn Ezra, Abraham of Corfu, 326 

Ibn Gebirol, 100 

Ibn Habib, 142 

Ibn Migas, 100, 276 

Ibn Nagdela, 100 

Ibn Sahl, Baruch b. Abraham, 349 

Ibn Shaprut, 100 

Illicit sex-relationships, 84 


Indignation, as excuse for wrong, 151, 152 


Informers, 42, 151, 184, 241 
Inheritance, 98 
Innocent, Pope, 338 


Inquisition, 92, 338 

Insubordination, writ of, 117 

Intermarriage, with those transgressing 
the ordinances, forbidden, 79, 80 

Interrupting the prayers, 15, 33, 48, 
128, 129, 243, 381 

Intractate wife, 68 

Isaac b. Abraham, 251 

Isaac b. Baruch Ha-Levi, 300 

Isaac b. Elijah, 256 

Isaac of Falaise, 116 

Isaac b. Gershon, 313 

Isaac b. Joseph b. Crispin 349 

Isaac of Lifatil, 314 

Isaac b. Meshullam, 250 

Isaac Or Zarua, 14, 62, 63, 66, 179, 223 

Isaac b. Solomon, 250 

Isaac b. Sheshet, 17, 73, 198 

Islam, 3 

Isserlein, 14, 26, 45, 73, 81, 244 

Isserles, R. Moses, 46, 93 

Italy, 86-95, 281-315; 
Jewish tenants in, 31 

Ittur, 17, 382 


protection of 


Jacob b. Abraham Solomon, 313 

Jacob b. Asher, 250 

Jacob Ha-Levi, 235 

Jacob b. Yakar, 36 

Jannai, 100 

Jehiel b. Joseph, R., of Paris, 66, 70, 
198, 200 

Joel b. Nathan, 250 

Johanan, R., 379 

Johanan b. Zakkai, R., 25 

Joseph b. Elhanan, 295 

Joseph Hezekial b. Moses, 289 

Joseph b. Judah, 250 

Joseph b. Othniel, 250 

Judah b. Moses, 63, 251 

Judah b. Simeon, 250 

Joseph b. Moses, 251 

Joseph Tob Elem, 13 

Josephus, 156 

Judah Eleazar, 347 

Judah Ha-Levi, 100 

Judah He-Hasid, 20 

Judah b. Ilai, 376 

Judah b. Kalonymos, 52 

Judah Sir Leon, 70 

Judges, election of 357; independence of, 
245 

Jurisdiction of local courts, 189, 198, 380 


Kalir, 100 

Kalonymos, R., 20 

Kalonymos b. Kalonymos, 169 
Karaites, 23 

Katzenellenbogen, R. Judah, 313 


388 | INDEX 


Katzenellenbogen, R. Meir, 95, 130, 
142, 304 

Ketubah, 29, 75, 143, 254, 325 

Kiddushin, 95, 305, 308, 321, 322 


Kol Bo, 27 


Lamperonti, Samuel 2301 

Land, inheritance of, 58; ownership of, 
10; sale of, forbidden, 12 

Landed estates, jurisdiction over, limited 
to highest courts, 198 

Loans, 36, 234 

Lombardy, 90, 297 

Losses, announcement of, inthe synagogue 
oo 

Lublin, R. Meir, 46 

Luria, R. Solomon, 28, 46, 54, 170 

Leontin, R. 20 

Letters, privacy of, protected by herem 
31, 189, 201 

Levirate marriage, 27; See also under 
Halizah. 

Liber, 36 

Lippmann of Muehlhausen, 76 

Lipshuetz, 36 


Ma‘amad, 320 

Maharil, 68, 76, 81, 130, 244. 

Maimonides, 67, 100 

Majority age of, for females, 97 

Majorca, Isle of, 344, 346 

Majority, rule of, 33, 34, 49 

Malshin, 151, 202, 339, 362, 363; See 
also under Informers. 

Malter, 3 

Mann, Jacob, 3, 9, 30 

Margins of books, ordinance against 
cutting, 48, 188, 201 

Margulies, 296 

Marriage, 22, 68, 79, 97, 364. 
Weddings; Kiddushin. 

Martin, Pope, 86, 87, 281 

Mar Ukba, 380 

Marx, A., 3, 96 

Mattathias b. Isaac, 295 

Mattathias b. Reuben, 250 

Mayence, 20, 21, 24, 35, 42, 52, 61, 63, 
UTaIS5 22515 259 

Meat, tax on, 352 

Meeting of the community, 371-373 

Meir b. Baruch, 13, 36, 47, 54, 63, 66-69, 
113, 117). 132, 145,451, 181-357; 378 

Meir Ha-Kohen, 67 

Meir Ha-Levi of Vienna, 9 

Meir b. Samuel, 250, 256 

Meir of Padua, See Katzenellenbogen, R. 
Meir. 

Menahem b. Abraham, 295 

Menahem Azariah, 73 


See also 


Menahem b. Meshullam, 289, 195 

Menlin of Rothenburg, 256 

Merseburg, R. Menahem, 37 

Meshullam b. David, 63, 251 

Milk, purchase of, from Gentiles, for- 
bidden, 262 

Mintz, R. Judah, 27, 306, 308 

Mintz, R. Moses, 14, 18, 77, 117, 183, 185 

Minyan, 88, 137 

Moli, Isaac, 326 

Molin, Jacob, 27; See also Maharil. 

Molin, Yekutiel, 74, 256 

Money lending, 39, 53, 59, 306, 312, 313 

Moses b. Abigdor, 295 

Moses b. Benjamin, 295 

Moses of Berne, 115 

Moses Hai b. Daniel, 295 

Moses Menahem Ha-Kohen, 2313 

Moses b. Mordecai, 52 

Moses Nathan Haii, 347 

Moses of Pontoise, 45 

Moses b. Yekutiel Molin, 256 

Mourners, 98, 324 

Mueller, 9, 20, 26, 31, 51, 237 


Nahmanides, 82 

Nahshon, R., Gaon, 201 
Narbonne, 43 

Nast, See Patriarch. 

Nathan b. Hayyim, 256 
Nathan b. Isaac, 58, 250 
Nathan b. Joseph, 295 
Nathan b. Simeon, 250 
Nathanel b. Shabbetai, 309 
Natronai, Gaon, 277 
Nicholas, Pope, 92 
Noirlingen, Ephraim b. Menahem, 313 
Noirlingen, Aaron David, 313 
Normandy, 43 

Nuremberg, 69, 76, 678 


Oaths, 60, 131 

Oppenheim, R. Seligmann, 77 
Ordination, 8, 9; See also Semika. 
Ordinances, making of, 132 
Orphans, protection of, 98, 371 


Padua, 86, 308 

Paltol, “isdon, 2237 
Parnes, 60, 242 
Patriarchs, 8, 50, 51 
Perez b. Elijah, 69-71, 217 
Perjury, 60, 238 

Pesaro, 315 

Peter the Hermit, 37, 38 
Peter, King, 337 

Petitha, 127, See Insubordination, writ of 
Petracol, Samuel, 309 
Pipi, 97, 327 


INDEX 389 


Plural Marriage, 23, 112, 306 

Poitiers, 43 

Polygamy, See Plural Marriage. 

Popes, 7, 89, 92, 101, 289 

Poznanski, 23. 

Prayers, 16, 355; See also Interrupiing 
the Prayers; Synagogue 

President of the Community, See Parnes. 

Printing, 192; See sential t Books, 
publication oh 

Procedure, rulers, 358 

Pumbedita, 2, 3 

Punishment, corporal, 363, 365° 


Tua Dis lOsel ose le? > 84 oe Oe 55m OO: 
U2 SOS E2015) 205,7 504, S058 a00, Soe 
Rabiah, 14, 52, 62, 63, 128, 250; See also 

Eliezer b. Joel Ha-Levi 
Rashbam, See Samuel b. Meir 
Rashi, 13, 14, 25, 431, 35, 36-38, 40, 
41, 59, 100, 105, 131, 146, 148, 149, 179 
Recante, 188 
Regensburg, 77 
Relatives as witnesses, 201 
Retention of property, 
Herem Ha-Ikkul 
Reviling one’s neighbors, 247 
Rhine communities, 56, 58, 75, 179 
Rokeah, 21; See also Eleazar b. Judah, R. 
Romagna, 86, 90, 297 
Rome, 86, 306, 314 
Rosenberg, 84, 277 
Rosenthal, 24, 62, 129, 143, 218, 235 
Rosin, 40 


Saadia, Gaon 2 

Sabbath, 61, 277 

Samson of Sens, R., 82, 133, 142, 170, 240 

Samuel Bonfant, 74, 256 

Samuel b. Elhanan, 381 

Samuel b. Joab, 295 

Samuel b. Meir, 40-43 

Sanhedrin, 12, 25, 51 

Schechter, S., 23, 74, 259 

Schools, 103; See also Education. 

Schorr, 102, 328, 337 

Seder R. Amram, 99 

Sefer Hasidim, 16, 28 

Seligmann, 78 

Semika, 9 

Serfdom, virtual, of the Jews, 47 

Seven Best Men, 52, 156, 358; See also 
Court of Seven Elders. 

Seville, 337 

Sex-relations, 98 

Shabbetai b. Joab, 295 


133; See also 


Shamta, 7, 22; See also Herem; Ecom- 


munication. 
Sharing tax-burdens, 60, 239 


Shaving the beard, 59, 234 

Shehitah, 260 

Sherira, Gaon, 3, 99 

Shohet, 61, 79, 248, 367 

Simhah b. Samuel, 62, 250 

Simon of Trent, 77 

Sir Leon, Judah, 63; See also Judah, 
R., Sir Leon. 

Slander, 61 

Slaves, responsibility of, 201, 377 

Solomon b. Jacob, 256 

Solomon of Troyes, 36 

Solomon Yedidiah b.Mathathias, 289, 275 

Speyer, 21, 24, 62, 251 

Stealing in play, 61 

Stolen property, 79 

Study, daily, 61, 248 

Summons, laws of, 48, 59, 128, 236 

Sutaye2 wos 

Synagogue, 16, 17, 33, 48, 60, 62, 88, 
103, 129, 130, 186, 187, 196, 276, 280 
S55 

Synods, 35, 37, 40, 42, 43, 69, 86 


Takkanot Shum, See Rhine Communities 

Taku, R. Moses, 14, 105 

Talmud, burning of, 66; law of, 14, 29, 
49, 69; study of, forbidden, 86 

Talmud Torah, provision for, 351 

Tam, R. Jacob, 14, 25, 27, 32, 36, 41-55, 
58, 63, 69, 78, 81, 100, 133, 142, 148, 
179, 184, 187, 300 

Vaxes;-.125915,036,041 7960, 79,9 8490103, 
105, 148, 238, 258, 290, 340, 359, 
368; exemption from, 13, 37, 87; 
farmers of, 368; for educational pur- 
DOSES noo le oO 

Teacher, number of pupils per, fixed, 354 

Tenants, 31, 84, 93, 199, 275, 305 

Tephilin, 315 

Testimony, witnesses compelled to give, 
49 

Three Communities, See Rhine Com- 
munities. 

Third Crusade 56; See also Crusdaes. 

Tithes, 18, 48, 61, 185, 247 

Title to property, 131 

WMOSAstisiS;:32; 03,.00,) 101 

Traboto, R. Yehiel 301 

Troyes, 36, 42, 43, 101 

AMDTAES th hy 

Tuscana, 86 


Valderas, 370 

Valencia, 102, 344, 346 
Valladolid, 103, 349 
Venice, 313, 314 

Vice, ordinances against, 88 


390 INDEX 


Vigilance Committee, 86, 87 


Usury, 90, 91, 234, 235; See also Money- 
lending. , 

Wallerstein, 259 

Weddings, 97, 240, 247, 323, 351 

Weil, R. Jacob, 314, 37, 76, 254 

Weiss, I. H. 40, 43 

Weissenfels, 76 

Widows, exempt from taxation, 371 

Wife-beating, 70 

Wine, 79, 98, 234, 236, 260, 325, 352, 
366 

Women, status of, 14, 68, 201, 377-379; 
as witnesses, 201, 377 


Worms, 21, 24, 52, 66, 251, 258, 264 


Yaffe, R. Mordecai, 46, 166 

Yedidiah, R., of Speyer, 66 

Yehiel. b. Abraham, 295 

Yehiel b. Isaac Ha-Kohen, 256 

Yehiel b. Mattathias, 289 

Yehiel of Paris, 66, 70, 82, 142, 145, 198, 
200 

Yekutiel b. Abraham, 295 

Yekutiel b. Joab, 289, 295 

Yekutiel b. Menahem, 295 

Yibbum, 57; See Levirate Marriage; 
Halizah. 


Zedaka, R., 84, 275 











; i : 
a 
A " iM : 






i A iA ry (hye F onl, sae, 
a af . , 
yb) ee ~ 
BORS GOP bass Te ney 
ay een Ue ’ ae , 











Date Due 


IN U. S.A, 


PRINTED 


J ‘ « "9 ae i } nie 
F i ay Arty, be eae Na 









DS124 .F4 
Jewish self-government in the middle 


ia 


1 1012 00023 0385 


